Beware of Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor Part C

(continuing our previous article..)

Sixth: Pilavachi holds to the ‘anointing’ doctrine which teaches that certain individuals are specially anointed by God. The doctrine causes people to believe that there are two types of Christians, those who are anointed and those who are Christian but who are ‘not’ so anointed. This teaching follows in the Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit which teaches that after conversion, there is another baptism that must take place in the believer’s life. Yet this is unknown in the Scriptures since we know that when a sinner is saved they are both anointed and are given the Holy Spirit to dwell in them for ever. It is a onetime moment of conversion.

Seventh: Pilavachi believes that Christ wants His church to perform physical healing today as the Apostle’s did.

According to Pilavachi spiritual healing is forgiveness and forgiving others. To put it simply: it is restoring relationships. That is spiritual healing according to Pilavachi. Physical healing is healing of the body, that is, both minor and serious injuries. He then shares a story of a particular case were a young person had an arthritis and one of his co-workers suggested that God was telling him that the cause of this persons physical problem is rooted in a relational problem. Supposedly, this person was physically injured because they have not forgiven their sister. Pilavachi says that once they prayed for this person her relationship changed and so did her physical body. She was healed. So according to Pilavachi: sickness is based on a personal moral sin. If that moral sin is then dealt with then sickness problem is solved. Could this mean that sin is equal to sickness or disease? The answer maybe yes! The Pentecostal WOF doctrine of healing teaches that sickness is sin and diseases are equal to sin. This was promoted by men such as Benny Hinn, E.W Kenyon and Kenneth Hagin. Hence Pilavachi effort to connect sickness with moral sin, is an unbiblical one. Since Christ answers that question in John 9 to the disciples who simply asked, as immature believers, whether the cause of the mans blindness was based upon his personal sin or the sin of his parents. Christ emphatically says neither (John 9:2-3).

In his TBN teaching series Pilavachi promotes Smith Wigglesworth[1] and calls him a great evangelist (min 10:23). [2] In min 18:23 he calls Wigglesworth his greatest hero : “I’ve listen to old tapes of him, I‘ve heard testimonies about him, I even got a small video clip of Smith Wigglesworth as an old man, it’s black and white, just him in the park feeding his ducks”. Pilavachi idolizes this man that he hopes this man’s anointing would rub off him. He adds “his teaching, I love the way God used him” (19:21 min). Pilvachi says that Wigglesworth’s theology is a simple one. All sickness is from the devil and as Christians we need to rebuke it in the name of Jesus (19:44). Wigglesworth wrote on how to deal with a sick person: “Most people think they have a thorn in the flesh. The chief thing in dealing with a person who is sick is to locate their exact position. As you are ministering under the Spirit’s power the Lord will let you see just that which will be more helpful and most faith-inspiring to them.”[3]. Wigglesworth claimed to have seen Jesus: “I looked at the window and at that moment the face of Jesus appeared. It seemed as though a million rays of light were coming from His face”[4]. But did this humble the man? Not so.

Pilavachi boastingly explains that on one occasion in order to help the sickness of cancer to leave a man in a church meeting, Wigglesworth punched the man very strongly in the stomach, (which was the place where he was sick with stomach cancer). Pilavachi says by all accounts the man got completely healed from this violent action. Sounds violent. Is this truly from the Spirit of God? Could Pilavachi not discern that it is not? Again let us read Galatians 5 what are the fruits of the Spirit “meekness” “love, peace, joy, longsuffering, gentleness”. None of these portray the man whom Pilavachi admires! Never did any Apostle of Christ use such violence in the name of ‘healing’. Christ never punched anyone in order to heal them. In fact Christ healed them instantly and completely without using such violence. Take for example the man born blind in John 9:1-12 and the man with the palsy in Matthew 9:1-3. Moreover, Wigglesworth is the one who kicked a baby in order for it to be healed according to Sid Roth’s program ‘Its supernatural’[5].

Does Pilavachi have any discernment of this ungodly work? He does not seems to. Strangely he says that though Wigglesworth is a favourite, he is not to be imitated. Then one would wonder: why mention him at all if he such a dangerous man to follow? Why not expose his ungodly behaviour and bring a rebuke to those who actually imitate him such as ‘Apostle’ Todd Bentley? Pilavachi excuses Wigglesworth saying that God could use a man’s wrong theology to heal people because what matters in healing is the person’s faith. But I ask: which verse in the Bible proves his point? By what authority does he say such irrational words? Pilavachi is already showing his ability as an unqualified teacher of the Bible since he lacks the discernment to avoid such violent men at all costs.

Eight: Pilavachi also advocates ‘authority’ over demons and spirits (mins 12:15). “We have authority because we are under authority, it is Jesus authority” he calls it “simple” “take authority in the name of Jesus and we break the power of the satanic stronghold”. As a result of this conclusion he teaches that believers also have the authority to heal people according to their relationship with Christ. But Acts 16 shows that this authority has finished with the son’s of Sceva. Jesus had authority and the Apostles over demons, but it is not for us today. We are called to resist the devil’s work and avoid the temptations of it. We resist him by being strong in the Word and strong in the Lord.

Ninth: his understanding of the Gospel. He calls it the ultimate healing, simply, forgiveness of sins[6]. That is part of the Gospel but not the right and glorious Gospel. His Christianity is “bizarre” which he said “we like” referring his tradition of charismatic and Pentecostalism. He added: The more bizarre the better.

But the question still remains, does Pilavachi’s view of sin also mean sickness? Because if Christ came to die; did He die so that we would be healed from sickness and diseases? If this is so then Pilavachi is preaching a different Gospel. Closely in the same manner or form as the one in WOF theology.

Just to note, there was an interesting interview he did for concerning his view on homosexuality and is the Church of England going to split. He replied that he does not agree with the homosexual position. However he added:

“At the same time it’s painful to see so many of my evangelical brothers and sisters sounding like they hate gay people. We have to love people who are homosexual, who are in the gay scene, because that’s what Jesus does. That doesn’t mean we approve. Sometimes we evangelicals come across as right, but nasty. That’s a tragedy and we need to repent of that. We sound self-righteous. I watched a TV programme at the height of the debate where they had a liberal Christian who doesn’t believe anything I believe, and an evangelical Christian who believes everything I believe, and I thought, ‘I agree with the evangelical, but the other guy’s nicer’. That should not be”[7].

Though Pilavachi knew that truth was on the Christians side, he still thinks that we become unloving in the way we ‘seem’ to say the truth. Some of us indeed, if we have intended to be harsh or hateful to homosexual’s, need to repent. However, that does not neglect the truth for what it is no matter what we may seem like to the world. Scripture speaks that when we preach the Gospel it is foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews (1 Cori 1:18). The liberal seems nicer because he is the false teacher. The Bible describes false teachers as smooth talkers wowing people in order to get their support (Romans 16:17-18).


Pilavachi is to be avoided since he promotes heretical doctrines which are promoted by false teachers. He does not seem very bothered dealing with some of the most horrendous extremes of the charismatic movement. His charge over a large number of young people ought to make us concern for their own soul’s under his teaching. Furthermore, his view on Christian living is nothing but running after the supernatural.  All in all, Pilavachi is to be avoided (Romans 16:17).






[6] (min 16:00,   )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s