Truth is what God thinks; it is what God does; it is what God is; it is what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible. Truth is found in its fullest form in God, for He is truth; He is the very source and origin of all truth.
Tim Challies

The Gospel According To Paulk

The Gospel According To Paulk The GOSPEL According to PAULK: A Critique of “Kingdom Theology”

If the content of my writing has been offensive to anyone – especially if they believed me to be in error – I should have been approached for reconciliation or correction according to Matthew 5:23,23. I have never refused to engage in dialogue with anyone who has sought to talk with me about my theological perspective. [1]

by Robert M. Bowman, Jr. with Craig S. Hawkins and Dan R. Schlesinger

The above statement was written by Bishop Earl Paulk and appeared in his church newspaper, Thy Kingdom Come, in November 1987. In four phone conversations in February 1988 with staff members of Paulk’s church, researchers from Christian Research Institute expressed their desire to engage in dialogue with him concerning his theological views. [2] The last three of these conversations were with Tricia Weeks, Publication Editor and Public Relations officer for Bishop Paulk. Mrs. Weeks attempted to answer some of the researchers’ questions and sent some written materials, but unanswered questions remained. Bishop Paulk has chosen not to dialogue. His new posture is well expressed in his February 1988 publication, Twenty Questions on Kingdom Teaching: “I prefer pouring my life into ministry to people rather than gearing my thoughts toward answering challenges from those who enjoy theological debate.” [3]

Our idea of an enjoyable theological debate is a stimulating discussion among Christian friends of such issues as predestination and election or the nature of the Millennium. Such issues, however, are not the cause for concern in this case. The issues of controversy in Paulk’s teaching have to do with such fundamental matters as the nature of God, man, Christ, and salvation. They are matters so serious that those who teach wrong doctrines about them must be regarded as false teachers or heretics.

Who is Bishop Paulk, and why is he the focus of such controversy? Paulk is the senior pastor of Chapel Hill Harvester Church in Atlanta, Georgia, a church of over 10,000 members. He is a bishop in the International Communion of Charismatic Churches (ICCC), a recently formed denomination which emphasizes the charisma (gifts of the Spirit) and traditional liturgy. [4]

Paulk is also the best known and most prolific writer (through Paulk’s publishing house, K Dimension Publishers) of “kingdom theology,” sometimes called “kingdom now.” This controversial movement has been the subject of a number of highly critical articles and conference statements, many of them labeling it heretical. [5]

Paulk is widely regarded as a leader by those who hold to “kingdom theology” hereafter “KT”). His position in the movement is exemplified by the fact that in 1990 his church is scheduled to host an ICCC-sponsored World Congress on the Kingdom of God. [6] In this two-part article, then, we shall be examining not only the teachings of Earl Paulk, but also those of the fastgrowing and controversial movement he represents.

HERETICAL RED HERRINGS

Almost all of what has been written in criticism of KT has focused on relatively minor doctrinal issues and denounced as heretical doctrines which at worst are merely controversial and mistaken. In fact, KT has been criticized for teaching doctrines which are not at all unique to the KT movement, which have been believed by Christians of many traditions for centuries. These irrelevant criticisms (or “red herrings”) have, understandably, been rejected by KT leaders such as Earl Paulk as divisive to the body of Christ.

In this study we wish to emphasize the difference between essentials of sound, orthodox Christian teaching, and those doctrinal issues on which Christians are free to disagree without needing to break fellowship. A teaching is truly heretical only if it errs by denying one or more of the essentials. It is aberrational, or aberrant, if it compromises or confuses the essentials, whatever it may teach on nonessentials. [7]

It is legitimate for critics of KT to voice their disagreement with it on matters of nonessentials. It is also legitimate for them to identify any serious errors which they may detect in its teaching on the essentials as either aberrant or heretical. But it is unfortunate when they confuse the two kinds of criticism.

Nonheretical though controversial aspects of the KT teaching include the following:

  • Identifying the church as the Israel of God, heir to the promises made originally to Israel;
  • Interpreting the book of Revelation symbolically;
  • Questioning or denying pretribulational premillennialism;
  • Believing that certain things must take place in the church before Christ returns;
  • Emphasizing the kingdom of God as a present reality;
  • Regarding the church as a manifestation of the kingdom of God;
  • Promoting unity among Christians of different traditions.

Some of these teachings will be contrary to the doctrines of dispensationalism, a theological system developed in the nineteenth century which insists on a “literal” method of biblical interpretation, teaches that the church and Israel are two separate covenant peoples of God, and looks for an any-moment rapture of the church before Christ’s return, when He will set up His Millennial kingdom on the earth. [8] However, the issues raised here are ones on which Christians can have legitimate disagreements. Bishop Paulk’s departure from dispensationalist doctrine, right or wrong, is not heretical or unorthodox. Indeed, it is not even unusual; from the standpoint of church history dispensationalism is the novel position (though, since Scripture is the only infallible authority in doctrine, the recent origin of dispensationalism does not prove it false). Therefore, it is a serious mistake to argue that KT is heretical on the basis of its views on these subjects.

It is also a mistake to regard KT with suspicion because of its emphasis on the kingdom of God as a present reality, or on the church as an agent of the kingdom in the world. Christ is king over all the earth now (Matt.28:19- 20; Heb.1:2-3; Eph.1:20-22; Col.1:13; etc.), and the church in its mission is advancing the cause of Christ’s kingdom (Matt.28:19-20; Rom.14:17-18; etc.). This is true even if one holds that the Millennium will be a unique and more complete manifestation of the kingdom of God on the earth, as is held by premillennialists.

Nor is it wrong to believe that Christians should seek to bring godly influence to bear in political and social institutions. Responsible Christians of all centuries have sought to apply their Christian faith to all spheres of life. If KT is to be criticized in this area at all, it should be on the basis of the manner in which godly influence in the public arena is sought, or of the doctrinal foundation upon which that influence is to be based.

DODGING CRITICISM

If it is wrong to condemn KT on the basis of controversial teachings which do not affect the essentials of the faith, it is also wrong to reject all criticisms of KT as inherently divisive and improper. Earl Paulk scathingly dismisses all who would evaluate KT teachings as “pseudo-protectors of the Church.” [9] His 1987 book THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW repeatedly criticizes all those who seek to evaluate the biblical soundness of Christian ministries:

At times it seems that voices warning of deception become the seducers themselves. They quote Scripture, write Christian books, speak on Christian radio and television programs, and their warnings confuse many Christians seeking truth in God’s Word. They target warnings of error toward some of the most anointed, fruitful ministries in the Church today. [10]

In a letter responding to a critique of KT by William Griffin, Paulk writes:

Calling ministers “heretics” and “false prophets” cannot be tolerated, and certainly will not solve any problems of disagreement. Such labeling is totally irresponsible coming from men and women of God. [11]

While we agree that calling ORTHODOX ministers heretics and false prophets is irresponsible, we must insist that this does not invalidate identifying truly heretical ministers as such. The question here is not whether there are false prophets outside the church; Paulk would agree to that. The point of contention is whether there are false teachers-heretics-within the orthodox Christian community. the implication of the statement cited above, along with a host of similar statements in Paulk’s books, is that such a suggestion is tolerable.

Yet, from a biblical perspective, the possibility of heretics within the orthodox community is sadly, undeniable. The Bible contains numerous warnings to the church to be on the watch for such false teachers (e.g., Acts 20:30; Rom.16:17; 2Cor.11:4-5, 13-15; Gal.1:6-9; 2Thess.2:1-2; 1Tim.4:1; 2Tim.2:17- 18; 4:14-15; Tit.3:10-11; 2Pet.2:1; 1John 4:1-2). Therefore, while it is wrong to label orthodox ministers as heretics, it is equally irresponsible to fail to identify heretics as such whether they represent themselves as Mormons, Catholics, Pentecostals, or Baptists. A heretic is simply someone who claims to be a Christian teacher but who teaches heretical doctrine, which, as we have said, is doctrine contrary to the essentials of Christian faith.

Paulk has put forth a number of arguments to discredit theological critiques of KT. Of these objections, two stand out: the appeal to authority, and the charge of bad fruit.

“WHERE’S YOUR COVERING?”

Repeatedly in THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW, Paulk criticizes critics of KT for not having the proper spiritual authority and calling from God “to bring admonishment to ministries.” [12]

Pseudo-protectors must answer the question, “Under whose authority do your preach, teach and write?”…When people outside of God’s structure of authority move as self-appointed judges or critics of ministries, they not only cause confusion in the body of Christ, but they open themselves to God’s judgment….Correction of senior pastors over major ministries is proper only by designated spiritual elders to the general Church. [13] In more than one place Paulk refers to this authority the believer needs to be under as one’s “covering.” [14] The concept here is of a chain of command in the church in which authority flows strictly from the top down, protecting those below with a “covering” from above. Those who are below are not in a position to question the teaching of those who are above them in the chain of command. The account in the Gospels of the centurion who expressed faith in Jesus’ authority to heal his servant without having to be physically present (Matt.8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10;) is typically cited as illustrative of this principle. [15]

There are a number of problems with this theory. First, it goes far beyond anything the Bible says about submission to church authority, which has to do with Christian conduct and ministry activities, not with doctrine. The prooftext passage about the centurion relates to Christ’s authority, either over angels or simply over nature, but certainly has nothing to do with a hierarchical authority structure in the church.

Second, saying that we must submit to church authorities does not solve for us the problem of deciding who is, after all, in charge. Paulk holds to the view that only bishops (“spiritual elders to the general Church’) have such authority. Even granting that claim for the sake of argument, which bishops are in charge? The Roman Catholic Bishops? The Eastern Orthodox bishops? The ICCC bishops? The Mormon bishops? Since Christians are faced with competing and conflicting claims to episcopal (or bishopric) authority, they have no recourse but to examine the claims of any and all such bishops, including Bishop Paulk, on the basis of scripture.

Third, the covering doctrine leaves no room for challenges of false doctrine taught by the top levels of the church. If Martin Luther, for example, had subscribed to Paulk’s chain of command view of church authority, he could not in good conscience have challenged the bishop of Rome on the matter of indulgences and other abuses.

We conclude, then, that Paulk’s dismissal of all criticisms of KT because the critics are not called to that ministry or do not have the proper authority is invalid. Certainly there are some people involved in the ministry of discerning cultic and heretical doctrine who are not truly discerning and who are causing division to the body of Christ, but this is simply not true of all those who are critical of KT.

“CHECK THE FRUIT”

The other major objection Paulk raises to critiques of KT is that such criticisms always produce bad fruit, whereas, he claims, KT teaching produces good fruit.

Books written on exposing ministries believed to be counterfeits hardly bring edification to Christians. What is the fruit of such probing? Suspicion. Fear. Doubt. Insecurity and mistrust of spiritual leadership. Could the source of teaching producing this fruit be from God?… Warnings against certain ministries have little effect on Christians who have experienced God’s miraculous, anointed power and love in churches consistently teaching principles of the Kingdom of God…Causing divisions among believers is clearly “seduction” of Christianity. [16]
These warnings of bad fruit resulting from criticism against ministries presuppose the very thing in question, namely, whether or not the fruit of these ministries is good fruit. There is nothing wrong with “suspicion” or “doubt” or “mistrust” directed against heretical or aberrant ministries! If the ministries under criticism are orthodox, on the other hand, Paulk’s criticism holds.

Part of the problem here is that Paulk seems to exclude doctrine as part of the “fruit” that must be tested. Such exclusion is unbiblical. The apostle John wrote that claims to the anointing of the Spirit should be tested by doctrine (1John 4:1-2). Moses warned that prophets whose predictions held true or who performed miracles should be rejected if they promoted a doctrine of different gods (Deut. 13:1-3).

Paulk also treats the divisions that result from criticism of ministries as the fault of the critics. This is true if the ministries are sound, but if they are not, the fault lies with the heretical or aberrant ministries, not with the critics. The apostle Paul taught that it was those who bring “doctrine contrary to what you have been taught” who create “dissensions,” not those who urge Christians to “avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

The claim that followers of KT teaching are experiencing “power” and “love” does little of itself to substantiate its orthodoxy. Nearly every heretical movement in Christian history has offered its followers such experiences. Discernment, from a biblical perspective, involves sorting out such claims on the basis of their adherence to the truth of God’s word. If KT is orthodox, the power and love its followers experience is evidence that the movement is not merely “dead orthodoxy.” intellectual assent to the truth apart from real faith. If, on the other hand, KT turns out to be less than orthodox, then, like the herectical movements before it, the experiences of its followers must be regarded as originating from a source other than the Holy Spirit.

FROM LATTER-RAIN TO KINGDOM NOW

To understand what KT is and why it is so important, it necessary to examine its historical development. KT did not arise in a vacuum, but is an outgrowth of a larger and somewhat diverse Pentecostal tradition known as the “The Latter-Rain” (LR) movement. This assertion might be challenged by some, and so will require some explanation and defense.

The term “later rain” (derived from James 5:7 and other biblical passages) has been used throughout the twentieth century by Pentecostals to refer to a final outpouring of the Holy Spirit to occur shortly before Christ’s return, generally accompanied by specific supernatural manifestations. Originally it was used simply of the Pentecostal movement itself; and some Pentecostals still use the term in that sense. [17]

However, the term is also frequently used to refer to a movement which arose within Pentecostalism in the late 1940’s. This movement originated in revival meetings held in 1948 by the Sharon Orphanage and Schools in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, Canada, which was administered by Herrick Holt and George and Ern Hawtin. This revivalist movement soon spread throughout the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. By late 1949 the Assemblies of God found it necessary in its General Council to denounce the New Order of the Latter Rain, as it had come to be known. [18]

FRANKLIN HALL AND WILLIAM BRANHAM

The reason why the Assemblies of God took this action can best be seen in examining the teachings of the two men whose ideas brought about the 1948 movement: Franklin Hall and William Branham. As has been documented elsewhere, both of these men taught heretical versions of Christianity which combined Pentecostalism with occultism. [19]

Franklin Hall came into prominence in 1946 with his book ATOMIC POWER WITH GOD THROUGH FASTING AND PRAYER. Hall encouraged long fasts, with one disciple fasting for a reported 83 days. This “fasting message” was picked up by a number of now famous Pentecostal evangelists, including Oral Roberts. Hall, who developed his views using astrology and other pseudoscientific concepts, also claimed that men could attain immortality through UFOs and through applying a biblical “formula for weightlessness.”

William Branham, also influenced by Hall, is generally credited by Pentecostal historians with leading the way, along with Oral Roberts, in bringing the “healing message” into Pentecostalism. According to this “message,” Christians may not only pray for miracles of healing today, but may expect them automatically through faith. Branham taught a from of the Oneness doctrine, according to which Jesus was in some sense the Father and the Son [20] (though he avoided the terms “Oneness” and “Jesus only”), and adamantly condemned the Trinity as a doctrine from the devil. He also taught the doctrine of the “serpent seed,” according to which Eve’s sin in Eden was having sex with the serpent, resulting in a race of people living to this day whose biological father is Satan. Branham also claimed to be the Prophet to the “Laodicean” age, the supposed final period of church history. Branham’s influence extended widely through his endorsement by the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International, a Pentecostal ministry which, though not overtly LR, has often promoted LR teachers.

The Pentecostals at Sharon Orphanage and Schools had read Hall’s ATOMIC POWER and attended Branham’s healing crusades, and were convinced that through these men they had learned of truths which God was “restoring” to the church in that day. Through the Sharon revivals the teachings of Hall and Branham quickly spread and took root in a number of ministries in North America. Some of the more embarrassing or peculiar theories of Hall and Branham – Hall’s astrological references, Branham’s “serpent’s seed” theory, etc. – were weeded out, and most of the LR Pentecostals retained their belief in the Trinity (though a significant portion of the LR was and is either Oneness or leans in that direction). However, the basic theological system of LR teaching was developed directly from combining the distinctive emphases of Hall and Branham.

THE LATTER-RAIN

The theological system of the LR included the following elements:

RESTORATIONISM.

The doctrine that God has been progressively restoring truths to the Church since the Reformation. These “restored” truths usually include justification by faith (Martin Luther), water baptism by immersion (the Anabaptists), sanctification (John Wesley), divine healing (A.B. Simpson, who in 1881 founded a movement which became the Christian and Missionary Alliance), Spirit baptism (the Azusa Street revival of 1906), followed by the various “restored” truths (including those listed below) emerging from the 1948 revivals.

IMMORTALIZATION OF THE CHURCH.

The belief that the church will attain to immortality before Christ’s return as a necessary aspect of its perfection and testimony to the world. While some in the LR tradition have dropped this teaching, for many it is key.

FAITH HEALING.

The belief that faith is a force that enables the believer (or, for some, the prophet, such as Branham) to create new realities out of nothing, just as God created the world out of nothing.

DISTINCTIVE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES.

Emphasized in the LR are the following disciplines or activities:

(1) Deliverance – the exorcism of demons from believers, often as a necessary step in their overcoming sinful habits of the flesh;

(2) Fasting – going without food for extended periods of time in order to attain supernatural power over the body;

(3) Laying on of hands – a ritual expressing the power of the “anointed” church leaders over the faithful; and

(4) Praise – an unrestrained form of worship calling upon God to perfect the church. (The place of praise in LR teaching was secured by George Warnock shortly after the 1948 revivals. Warnock was at time a secretary to Ern Baxter, who in turn had been William Branham’s secretary.)

UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

The doctrine that the church, or (usually) a small remnant of the church, will attain mature unity of faith before Christ returns.

FIVEFOLD MINISTRY.
The belief that the church today has all five offices of Ephesians 4:11, including apostles and prophets, through whom the church receives new doctrinal revelations and overall direction. Church unity comes through submission to the elders and through them to the fivefold ministry.

CHILDREN OF THE LATTER-RAIN

MANIFEST SONS OF GOD.

Among the many LR ministries which developed in the months following the LR revivals were several which subscribed to a set of doctrines which came to be known as Manifest Sons of God (MSG). Based on Hall’s teachings concerning immortalization, MSG taught that the “manifestation of the sons of God” spoken of in Romans 8:19 was to occur as a result of the final shower of the Latter Rain just prior to Christ’s return. These “sons of God” would be drawn from a remnant of the church, and would be individual extensions of the Incarnation or replicas of Christ, who was regarded as the “Pattern Son.” Some, though not all, MSG teachers either leaned toward or fully embraced some form of Oneness or modalism (as a similar heresy in the early church is known) in which the Father became the Son, is becoming the church. Prominent MSG teachers from the early 1950’s into the early 1980’s included Bill Britton and John Robert Stevens; the latter was the founder of the Church of the Living Word, also know as the Walk. [21]

SHEPHERDING.

Two other movements stemming from the LR ought to be noted. The first is the “Shepherding” or “discipleship” movement. [22] Shepherding was a development in 1970 of the LR emphasis on the need for submission to spiritual leaders, and originated from the ministry of five teachers in the Fort Lauderdale area – Ern Baxter (Branham’s former secretary,) Don Basham, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, and Charles Simpson.

By the late 1970s the movement was receiving a great deal of bad press both within and outside the church. In the mid 1980s the terms “shepherding” and discipleship,” along with some admitted abuses, were dropped by almost everyone connected with the teaching. However, many of the teachers of Shepherding, such as Bob Mumford, resolutely maintain the validity of the movement’s basic principles [23] and seek to revive them in a new setting and under a new name (such as “covenant life” or “church life”). One organization which continued to practice Shepherding in some form in the 1980s was Maranatha Campus Ministries (MCM), founded by Bob Weiner. MCM was evaluated by a committee of cult researchers in 1983 and 1984 and found to be plagued with abuses in its exercise of authority. [24]

POSITIVE CONFESSION.

The other offspring movement of the LR was the “Positive Confession” (PC) or “word-faith” teaching, popularly known by the nickname “name it and claim it.” This movement developed from an application of the basic theological system of E.W. Kenyon (who died about the same time as the LR movement was being born) to the LR concerns of healing and deliverance (as well as material prosperity). Kenyon, like Branham, taught that faith was a force which could be harnessed by anyone who employed its principles. By such faith God Himself had created the universe, and Jesus had overcome the devil after “dying spiritually” and going to hell, resulting in Jesus being “born again” as the “firstfruit” of a new species of humanity. According to the PC teaching, this new humanity has recovered its status as “little gods.” Prominent teachers of PC (with some variations in each case) include such popular evangelists as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Charles Capps, and Robert Tilton. [25] The dependence of this movement on the LR, which is evident from their theological affinities, is illustrated by Kenneth Hagin’s acknowledgement of Branham as a “prophet.” [26]

THE KINGDOM MESSAGE

The “kingdom” message, or KT teaching, is essentially a synthesis of the various strands of LR teaching into a systematic doctrine focused around the concept of the “kingdom.” The KT doctrine developed in the early 1980s as Pentecostals with no apparent direct ties to Hall or Branham sought to put forth a more comprehensive message incorporating all of the recently “restored” truths. As was the case with the MSG, Shepherding, and PC movements, no one individual appears to be solely responsible for the rise of KT, although certain individuals stand out – for example, Thomas F. Reid, Larry Lea, John Gimenez, and especially Earl Paulk.

All of the major themes of the LR – restorationism, immortalization of the church, healing, deliverance, fasting, laying on of hands, praise, unity of the church, and the fivefold ministry – are found in KT teaching. The MSG doctrine of the church as the ongoing Incarnation, the Shepherding theme of submission to one’s “covering,” and the PC emphasis on faith, prosperity, and Christians as “little gods,” all find developed expression in KT.

The KT movement has particularly close affinity with the PC doctrine. In fact, it might be described as teaching a corporatization of Positive Confession. That is, KT takes the doctrines of PC, which focused on the individual, and applies them to the church as a corporate body. Whereas PC teaches that individual Christians should prosper, KT teaches that the church should prosper. In PC the believer is to “take dominion” over his personal life by exercising his godhood; in KT the church is to “take dominion” over human institutions by acting as the ongoing Incarnation in the world.

IT is this concept of “dominion” applied on the institutional level, in fact, which appears to be the major new ingredient in the KT synthesis. The origin of this facet of KT appears to be the teaching of another movement emphasizing the concept of “dominion,” called Reconstructionism. Because this movement is often discussed alongside KT with little or no distinction between the two, something needs to be said about it.

RECONSTRUCTIONISM AND KINGDOM THEOLOGY

There are a least two major movements in contemporary American Christianity known by the general name of “dominion theology.” KT is one of these; the other is better known as Reconstructionism. The latter movement, which arose within Reformed or Calvinistic Christianity, teaches the doctrine known as theonomy, according to which modern nations are responsible to God to enforce the civil sanctions of the Mosaic Law. Reconstructionists also generally teach postmillennialism, the view that the church will transform the world through evangelism, leading to a long age of earthly peace and prosperity before Christ returns. Thus, the theological roots of Reconstructionists and LR Pentecostals.

Most Reconstructionists, though, appear to resist being linked in any direct way with KT. It is unfortunate that almost every critique of KT has treated KT and Reconstructionism as two strands of the same teaching. While there is some overlap of terminology, ideas, and activities, the two movements are largely distinct. [27]

EARL PAULK AND THE KINGDOM

In his books Earl Paulk consistently praises the leading teachers of the movements emerging from the LR and takes a position of one building on their contributions. Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin are among the specific ministers whom Paulk defends as “anointed” messengers – in the case of Roberts, an “apostle” – to the church. [28]

It is true that Paulk attempts to dissociate himself somewhat from certain labels of LR doctrines which have suffered from “bad press.” So, for instance, he rejects the “name it and claim it” label, affirming that he does not hold to that “extreme” view, and urges his readers to forget about the “theory” of MSG. However, he clearly adheres to the substance of both PC and MSG, as well as Shepherding, though wanting to distance himself from the “abuses” of these views. [29] Any differences between Paulk’s teaching and those of the MSG, Shepherding, and PC movements appear to be refinements due to synthesis, much as the LR of the 1950s adopted Franklin Hall and William Branham’s “restored truths” while refining out the more bizarre and incongruous elements.

The KT of Earl Paulk, then, is a system of doctrine developed directly out of the LR movement with some possible influence (of a nonheretical sort) by Reconstructionism. A direct line of theological influence (and not mere “association”) can therefore be traced from the teachings of Franklin Hall and William Branham, both of whom were unquestionably heretics, to the teachings of Earl Paulk.

In Part II of this article we will set out in detail the theology of Earl Paulk with extensive documentation, leaving no doubt concerning the nature of Paulk’s doctrine. We shall then offer a biblical critique of KT as found in the representative writings of Bishop Paulk.

NOTES

  1. Earl Paulk, “Paulk Answers,” Thy Kingdom Come, Nov. 1987, 1.
  2. Telephone calls from Robert Bowman, Jr. (RMB) to Bishop Paulk’s secretary on Feb. 15, 1988; from RMB and Craig S. Hawkins to Tricia Weeks on Feb. 16; and from RMB to Tricia Weeks on Feb. 18 and 26.
  3. Earl Paulk, Twenty Questions on Kingdom Teaching, advance prepublication copy (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, Feb. 1988), n.p. under Question 19).
  4. “World Congress on the Kingdom of God to be held in 1990,” Thy Kingdom Come, July 1987, 1.
  5. E.g., “A Summary of Some Kingdom Now Doctrines which Differ from the Teaching of the Assemblies of God (Adopted as a white paper by the 1987 General Presbytery),” Aug. 3-5, 1987; William A. Griffin, “Kingdom Now: New Hope or New Heresy:”, presented to the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Nov. 12-14, 1987; Albert James Dager, “Kingdom Theology,” Parts I,II, and III, Media Spotlight, Vol. 7, Nos. 2, 3; Vol. 8, No. 1 (1986- 87).
  6. “World Congress,” 1.
  7. For an example of how such distinctions are applied, see Robert M. Bowman, Jr., “Ye Are Gods? Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification of Man,” Christian Research Journal 9 (Winter/Spring 1987), 18-22.
  8. The standard primer on dispenstionalism is C.C. Ryrie, Dispenstionalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965). Two responsible critiques are Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), and Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980).
  9. Earl Paulk, That the World May Know (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, 1987), 10-15 (hereafter World).
  10. World, 117.
  11. Undated letter (written in Nov. 1987) from Earl Paulk to William Griffin, 1-2.
  12. World, 3.
  13. World, 10, 70, 121.
  14. E.g., World, 3, 11.
  15. World, 11.
  16. World, 74, 79, 122; see also 70, 118.
  17. E.g., Vinson Synan, In the Later Days: The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Twentieth Century (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant books, 1984), 5-7.
  18. For accounts of these events from various perspectives, see Richard Riss, “The Latter Rain Movement of 1948,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society of Pentecostal Studies 4 (Spring 1982): 32-45; L. Thomas Holdcroft, “The New Order of the Latter Rain,” Pneuma 2 (Fall 1980): 46-60; and William W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story of the assemblies of God (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 321-25.
  19. The information in this section is taken largely from Albert James Dager “Kingdom Theology, Part I,” Media Spotlight 7 (April-June 1986): 17-21, who also documents the connection between these men and the Latter-Rain movement; and Eric Pement, “William Branham: An American Legend?” Cornerstone 81 (1987): 14-17 (on which see this writer’s corrective letter Cornerstone 82 [1987]).
  20. See Robert M. Bowman, Jr., “Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity: A Biblical Critique,” Forward 8 (Fall 1985): 22-27.
  21. See Todd Ehrenborg, “The Church of the Living Word,” in Walter Martin (ed.), The New Cults (Santa Ana: Vision House, 1980), 269-96.
  22. See, e.g., “Christian – Who Is Your Covering? A Christian Looks at the Shepherding Movement,” Personal Freedom Outreach Newsletter 3 (April-June 1983); and The Discipleship and Submission Movement, a report adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 17, 1976 (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1976), available from CRI.
  23. See Bert Ghezzi, “Bob Mumford: After Discipleship,” Charisma & Christian Life, August 1987, 20-27.
  24. See “A Statement of Evaluation Regarding Maranatha Campus Ministries/- Marantha Christian Ministries/Marantha Christian Church,” by James Bjornstad, Steve Cannon, Ronald Enroth, Karen Hoyt, Gordon Lewis, and Brian Onken (Aug. 1984), available from CRI (order #DM-035).
  25. See Robert M. Bowman, Jr., “Positive Confession and the ‘Faith’ Teaching,” CRI statement DP-075, for an overview and list of materials available on Positive Confession.
  26. Kenneth E. Hagin, Ministry of a Prophet (Tulsa: Faith Library Publications, 1979), 8, cited in Pement, 16.
  27. See the article on Reconstructionism on p. 22 of this issue of the JOURNAL (Winter/Spring 1988). For an example of Reconstructionist attitudes towards the KT movement, see Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: Dave Hunt’s Theology of Cultural Surrender (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1988), xiv (n. 5), 76, 82, 166, 335-36.
  28. E.g., World, 12-14, 43, 101, 150, 164,; Ultimate Kingdom (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, 1986), 79.
  29. World, 149; Held in the Heavens Until (Atlanta: K Dimension Publishers, 1985), 170-71