# Philipians 1:12 - Does God bless the preaching of the gospel by unbelievers?



## kvanlaan (Jul 30, 2012)

> 12 But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, 13 so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; 14 and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
> 
> 15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former* preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. *


*

Is it always pleasing to the Lord to have the gospel preached, even when it is spoken by those who would be considered something less than conveyors of the gospel? For example, for Benny Hinn to speak a biblical sermon would seem, according to the verses above, to be a good thing, even if he is doing it just for personal gain. But if we look at Acts 16, we see Paul exorcising a demon just to get a demon-possessed woman to be quiet, though she spoke the truth that would technically lead others to Christ. So I am looking for an explanation here...*


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 30, 2012)

I do not think unbelievers are in view here, but rather believers who truly preach the Gospel but also harbor divisive tones or grudges against Paul. Have you ever heard of one minister having a grudge against another minister, and using his platform to slander and cause trouble for the other? You see great examples of this in Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism. It's amazing how church-life hasn't really changed much in 2,000 years.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 30, 2012)

Jacob, thank you, very enlightening.

Josh, thank you, somewhat less enlightening.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> Is it always pleasing to the Lord to have the gospel preached, even when it is spoken by those who would be considered something less than conveyors of the gospel? F



In the sense of "good" works, God looks both at the outward act and inward motive so it's not pleasing to God if the inward motive is wrong.

In the sense of God working good through the evil intended acts of man (theology of concurrence) we can say God is pleased to use man's deficient secondary causes as means to His ends, which are , by definition, good. An example of this would be Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers.



> Genesis 50
> 
> 19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?
> 
> 20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.


----------



## Beau Michel (Jul 30, 2012)

Another example brother would be Judas betraying Christ.Though men sought evil in the crucifixion,God used their evil intentions to procure the salvation of His people.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 30, 2012)

I like the explanation of the concept in general, but would we all agree on what Jacob said about it being of a sinful motivation from other believers, or is there room to believe that the preaching of the gospel by those who would desecrate the name of Christ is still of value?


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Jul 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> > 12 But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, 13 so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; 14 and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former* preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. *
> 
> 
> *
> ...


*

I think that it is always pleasing to the Lord when "the TRUE gospel" is preached, even when spoken by those that have poor theology (as we all have poor and inaccurate theology to a degree) or are even unbelievers. I believe at times that God uses both unbelievers and believers with poor theology to bring his sheep to Christ. How many have come to Christ through pastor who later fell away from the faith never to return? Or how many have come to Christ through a John Welsey, an Arminian preacher with poor theology, a pentecostal? I would assume many on PB might have started from these means and now through the Holy Spirit, they were lead to Reformed Theology. Yay!  So it is good that the true gospel is preached. However, for the preacher of the true gospel, if they fall away from the faith and prove to be an unbeliever, how much worse for them is this later state when they had the true gospel and spoke it from their very lips and still rejected it. Their condemnation would be worse now than if they had never known the true gospel.

Might this verse have some relevance by the spirit of the example? Mark 9:38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.


However, if some are preaching a false or incomplete gospel, I believe God will even sometimes use this to draw His sheep but at the same time, He will also receive glory by their condemnation. So if you have some Word Faith scammer like Creflo Dollar selling an incomplete false gospel to make money off Christianity, I believe Dollar is piling up condemnation upon himself but God can even use this to bring a very few to Christ. But then again, Dollar is so far off and the people following him are motivated by such greed, so maybe they are all just condemned and God would chose not to use Dollar to bring even one single person to Christ. Maybe God won't use Dollar but I can see him using Osteen or Joyce Meyer. As much as I personally cannot stand their teachings, I would be surprised if no one has ever come to Christ through Osteen and Meyer, just like I am sure many have come to Christ through the Catholic Church, despite its false teachings.*


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> I like the explanation of the concept in general, but would we all agree on what Jacob said about it being of a sinful motivation from other believers, or is there room to believe that the preaching of the gospel by those who would desecrate the name of Christ is still of value?



Can you clarify what you mean here, are you saying Joseph's brothers were believers?


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 30, 2012)

Point taken, Scott. I guess I just find it hard to believe that someone like Hinn would at some point form a true gospel message in one of his 'sermons'.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 30, 2012)

If I'm following your thinking on this,

It would seem that as a "secondary cause" (e.g. a person preaching the gospel with their intention to cause trouble for others, to make money on it, etc.) it is not pleasing because no sin is pleasing to God.

The good thing is, the Word has a power all its own. It's not dependent on the purity (or lack thereof) of the person quoting it. On top of that, God is never limited by man's intentions or by his means from accomplishing something good from it.



> Isaiah 55:11
> 
> So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.



Now, one who would presume to teach God's people (including an evangelist) will be judged by a higher standard, so for them, their unbelief, their misrepresentation, their wrong motive, etc.- it's not a good thing.

And it doesn't change a believer's duty to oppose sin, e.g. oppose bad doctrine and morals, etc. but I don't think that is what you are questioning.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 30, 2012)

I think you'll also find that the church's decision on the heresy of Donatism has relevance to this issue.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 30, 2012)

kvanlaan said:


> Point taken, Scott. I guess I just find it hard to believe that someone like Hinn would at some point form a true gospel message in one of his 'sermons'.



I was going to ask if there was any evidence that, in fact, Hinn had ever done so.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 30, 2012)

Jacob, it would be helpful if you gave a précis on the church's decision re the heresy of Donatism.


Kevin, I've wondered about this. I've heard it asserted that a person void of the Spirit can bring the Gospel in truth. If that is the case, I might liken it to seeing the word of God on a raggedy piece of paper torn off from a tract lying in the dirt, and the Lord using that to speak to a soul in dire need. Such has happened to me. God can quicken His word to the heart no matter what the circumstance of its delivery is.

On the other hand, for an unbeliever to be nurturing the church through a regular ministry of preaching, I have grave doubts. Yes, he could convey the word of God, but the anointing of the Spirit of Christ would not be in his heart or voice, and this preaching would have no divine life in it.

So, God using the preaching of an unbeliever, while He at times may do so, it is an anomaly, and generally _*not*_ a blessing.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 30, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, it would be helpful if you gave a précis on the church's decision re the heresy of Donatism.


Steve, my apologies for the abbreviated post. I was on my way out from work at that moment. Carl Trueman has an article that articulates the main thrust of what I'd say here: Cassandra says, Beware the new Donatism. Regardless of the celebrity pastor commentary, the main point is this, "the Donatists were wrong, as distasteful as that may appear: the power of the word and the sacraments does not depend upon the moral quality of the person preaching or performing the baptism; and it is vital that that is the case."


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 30, 2012)

Steve, that is just it - Hitler can proclaim God's power by exclaiming (as the Russians entered Berlin) that God had struck down the Third Reich (I don't know that it happened, but as an example). Yes, He had. But Hitler is in no way a conveyor of Gospel Truth. That is why the possessed woman gave me pause when I thought about someone proclaiming God's word, and how could it be a bad thing? And yet Paul gets annoyed by it, and casts out the demon that spoke it through her to be rid of her proclamations.

The bit about Donatism was very interesting - I thought it quite an insightful read (I had to look it up), and I can see the parallel (that there is no perfect person to transmit the gospel, save Christ, so don't squabble over the details), but can't see a person devoid of the Spirit leading a congregation.


----------

