How accurate is the following description (WOF)... ?

[rhemarob]

It seems pretty accurate, its sort of vague but a decent overview.

 

[rhemarob]

P

1.The “Baptism in the Holy Ghost” tenet, which is strictly Pentecostal in its wording and, it seems to me, would make Rhema a Pentecostal denomination/group as much as WOF.

We are without a doubt a Pentecostal denomination, actually we intermingle with and fellowship with many AOG churches.

 

[probinson]

The link to Christian Science is unfair, I will admit, but it stems from a mutual denial of sickness. For example, some people who subscribe to WOF will say that a person is healed when it is obvious they aren’t. You were “positionally” healed, they will say, when Jesus bore the stripes on His back thus purchasing healing for every believer. So what if the symptoms remain, the cancer continues to grow, the virus is still there, your body is wasting away, it is not reality, it is an illusion, because our interpretation of the Bible says you were healed 2,000 years ago. This belief does, in many ways, resemble that of Mary Baker Eddy, who taught that "harmony is the fact, and sickness is a temporal dream" (Science & Health with a Key to the Scripture). IOW, sickness was not real, it is an illusion, a dream, and we are, in fact, whole/healed.

She also taught, “if God created drugs for healing the sick, why did not Jesus employ them and recommend them for that purpose?” (Miscellaneous Writing)

While I would in no way say that WOF believers are in any way sympathetic to Eddy’s teachings, I would also have to admit that I have heard WOF subscribers echo these very beliefs.

~Jim

Jim, this view is not widely held by WoF anymore. The view that is held by the WoF circles I hang around concerning healing is this: You do not deny your sickness. You deny your sickness the right to be in your body.

 

[Leimeng]

Actually, I don't know that. I do know that the WoF movement is closer to Christian Science and various Eastern and New Age Philosophies that to orthodox Christianity.

Then you're either unfamiliar with Copeland's teaching or you're unfamiliar with Mormonism.

~ Being quite familiar with and having studied LDS and other cultic theology I can state with confidence that WoF teaching is quite different.
~ I can also state with total confidence that it appears that you have little understanding of various eastern philosophies. And so called new age teachings have nothing to do with Mr Copelands teachings. They are in many ways similar to some of the gnostic schools and its pseudo christian derivatives.
~ One of the things that so many individuals in the Church fall prey to is listening to other pseudo teachers use vague scary terms about what they dont understand, and then accuse people they don't agree with as being guilty of practicing such. One of the biggest areas is the all encompassing net of "Eastern Philosophy" and "Eastern Religion." What they usually mean by this is a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of a few Hindu mystical schools, or an even worse misinterpretation of some Buddhist schools. However, not only are Hinduism and Buddhism different, (although Buddhism does derive from Hinduism), but there are dozens of very contradictary schools in both Hinduism, and Buddhism. This does not include the 9 major schools of Taoism and the different historical interpretations of Confucianism. And then the different animist traditions such as Shinto and Kut et al. The metaphysical, theoretical, theological, philosophical and applicable debates in these traditions are way way way to divisive and variant to be broadly based into just one basket.
~ Because the broad accusations made by the anti-Faith, anti-Word cult fall apart when compared to scripture and a LOT of historical tradition and commentary on that scripture (not all commentary, just a lot of it), it is a lot easier to pull the old boogie man of Eastern Religion and Eastern Philosophy out of the hat and hope to impress people that way. Sadly, because most people can't even name let alone quote the classical texts of the dozens of schools of classical eastern traditions, the trust the so-called experts and what they say.
~ This does not mean that I believe or trust those traditions in any way, but I dont accept the rampant ignorance about those traditions either. The remainder of discussions when related to comparisons of the boogie-man are automatically suspect, and under closer examination fall apart.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liners Here***)

 

[12volt_man]

~ Being quite familiar with and having studied LDS and other cultic theology I can state with confidence that WoF teaching is quite different.

Mormonism teaches that God has a physical, corporeal body.

Copeland teaches that God has a physical, corporeal body.

Mormonism teaches that Jesus was a sinful man who was exalted to Godhood by keeping the law.

Copeland teaches that Jesus became a sinful man and suffered for His sins in Hell.

Mormonism teaches that God lives on his own planet.

Copeland teaches that God lives on His own planet.

Mormonism teaches that men may become gods.

Copeland teaches that men are gods.

I can go on, if you'd like but, suffice to say, Copeland is closer to Mormonism than he is to Christianity.

~ I can also state with total confidence that it appears that you have little understanding of various eastern philosophies.

As someone who helped found an outreach ministry to people caught up in cults and abberant Christian teachings, I'm familiar with a lot of different religions and philosophies.

And so called new age teachings have nothing to do with Mr Copelands teachings.

I refer you to Copeland's "faith is a force" teachings.

~ Because the broad accusations made by the anti-Faith, anti-Word cult fall apart when compared to scripture

OK. Would you mind showing us where we're told that Jesus was a sinner who had to suffer in Hell?

I mean, if this is supported by scripture, as you say, then it shouldn't be too hard, right?

 

[chilifrankplate]

12 volt, I continually see you posting that it was said that Jesus became a sinner. This is a complete misinterpretation to what has actually been said on numerous occasions. Jesus bore our sin, was made to be sin, not a sinner. He paid the price for us all, not for himself. I have listened to many teachings by Copland as well, and have never heard him make any such claims either.

 

[JimB]

12 volt, I continually see you posting that it was said that Jesus became a sinner. This is a complete misinterpretation to what has actually been said on numerous occasions. Jesus bore our sin, was made to be sin, not a sinner. He paid the price for us all, not for himself. I have listened to many teachings by Copland as well, and have never heard him make any such claims either.

This ‘Jesus as sinner’ doctrine has given WOF it’s blackest eye. << rest of paragraph omitted by request >>

That said, and as much as I like the guy and find him entertaining, Kenneth Copeland has become the leading voice in the lightning-rod 'Jesus as Sinner' (or the Spiritual Death of Jesus) doctrine, heretical because of its novelty and in the fact that it flies in the face of the 2,000 years of fundamental/essential Church theology (a.k.a., orthodoxy). Copeland is simply elaborating on a teaching first espoused and advanced by Kenyon through Hagin to Copeland.

Here are just a few of KC’s quotes on the subject (there are many, many more, but these documented statements can be found online in several places - I will look them up for you if you like):

“He allowed the Devil to drag Him into the depths of Hell as if He were the most wicked sinner who ever lived. He submitted Himself to death. He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control....For three days in the belly of the earth, He suffered as if He'd sinned every sin that exists." (Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory, September 1991, p.3)

"The death of Jesus Christ was not a physical death alone. If it had been a physical death, Abel would have paid the price for mankind. He was the first man that died because of honoring God and His Word. If it had been a physical death only, it wouldn't have worked! And if He hadn't died spiritually, that body never would have died." (Copeland, What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

"How did Jesus then on the cross say, ‘My God.’ Because God was not His Father any more. He took upon Himself the nature of Satan. And I’m telling you Jesus is in the middle of that pit. He’s suffering all that there is to suffer, there is no suffering left . . . apart from Him. His emaciated, little wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing and the devil thinks He’s got Him destroyed. But, all of a sudden God started talking." (Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory TV program, TBN, April 21, 1991.)

"He allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell as if He were the most wicked sinner who ever lived ... Every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him ... [They]tortured Him beyond anything that anybody has ever conceived ... In a thunder of spiritual force, the voice of God spoke to the death-whipped, broken, punished spirit of Jesus ... [in] the pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life ... He was literally being reborn before the devil's very eyes. He began to flex His spiritual muscles ... Jesus Christ dragged Satan up and down the halls of hell ... Jesus ... was raised up a born-again man ... The day I realized that a born-again man had defeated Satan, hell, and death, I got so excited ...!" (Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory , September, 1991)

There are many more similar comments that are easy enough to find and should give anyone who believes in WOF pause to stop and reflect on what is being taught. You do not have to swallow the whole buffet to be WOF. There is, it appears, some rotting meat in the entree.

If something like this was being taught, and generally accepted, in the fellowship I am a member of I would feel I had no choice but to distance myself from them ASAP and if they did not recant, no longer identify myself with them. I would feel I had no choice, if I were to hold on to my integrity, no matter how much I loved the other stuff they believed. This false teaching is, IMO, way too serious of a matter to pooh-pooh or ignore. To believe in it is scary.
IMO.

~Jim

 

[12volt_man]

12 volt, I continually see you posting that it was said that Jesus became a sinner. This is a complete misinterpretation to what has actually been said on numerous occasions. Jesus bore our sin, was made to be sin, not a sinner. He paid the price for us all, not for himself. I have listened to many teachings by Copland as well, and have never heard him make any such claims either.

Jim stole my thunder but, as you can see from what he posted, Copeland does, indeed teach this and it is more than enough to mark him as anathema.

I'm curious to know how many Copeland followers are willing to stand up for God's word and tell Copeland to take a hike, like the Bible tells us to.

 

[probinson]

This ‘Jesus as sinner’ doctrine has given WOF it’s blackest eye. It’s what happens when you look to men who barely had the brains to get a high school diploma as your leading theologians and men whose only claim to fame is in the fact that they have spent an entire lifetime promoting themselves through television “ministry”, fundraising and cheesy, cheaply printed and too-easily distributed booklets.

This is nothing more than a cheap shot. I'm appalled. I've just lost a great deal of respect for you. I've never reported a post to a mod before, but I may make an exception for this one.

Debate the issues. Unless you can't. It always helps to call into question the integrity, or in this case, the intelligence of those you don't agree with. Don't personally attack people because you don't believe like they do.

One does not need to have "brains" to understand and comprehend the Word of God. Indeed, the Bible says we must become like a child.

 

[victoryword]

I'll never understand why many of you waste your time engaging Jim M. His motives have been clear for so long that even a blind man can see them. He starts these threads with this deceptive air of sincerity and then works his way through the thread blasting at the people he desires to criticize. He is only looking for that opportunity when he starts these threads.

Jim obviously has it in for the Word-Faith and many Pentecostals and Charismatics who are not in Vineyard and worshipping at the John Wimber altar.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Mod Hat

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Directly calling another member “cultist”, “heretic” or “bigot” as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.
b. Calling famous individuals derogatory names (unless it is a well-known nickname) as this may be considered defamation.
1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a “cult”, “heretic”, “demonic” or “satanic” but you may discuss doctrines, teachings, practices or writings of other religious organizations as long as empirical evidence is provided.
1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.
1.4 You will not misquote another member regardless of context.
1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.


FRIENDLY REMINDER

YOU MAY DISCUSS DOCTRINE.
YOU MAY NOT ATTACK THE PEOPLE WITHIN THAT DOCTRINE
RESORTING TO CHEAP NAME CALLING IS VERY UNBECOMING
TO ALL INVOLVED.​

 

[ProAmerican]

This ‘Jesus as sinner’ doctrine has given WOF it’s blackest eye. It’s what happens when you look to men who barely had the brains to get a high school diploma as your leading theologians and men whose only claim to fame is in the fact that they have spent an entire lifetime promoting themselves through television “ministry”, fundraising and cheesy, cheaply printed and too-easily distributed booklets.

That said, and as much as I like the guy and find him entertaining, Kenneth Copeland has become the leading voice in the lightning-rod 'Jesus as Sinner' (or the Spiritual Death of Jesus) doctrine, heretical because of its novelty and in the fact that it flies in the face of the 2,000 years of fundamental/essential Church theology (a.k.a., orthodoxy). Copeland is simply elaborating on a teaching first espoused and advanced by Kenyon through Hagin to Copeland.

Here are just a few of KC’s quotes on the subject (there are many, many more, but these documented statements can be found online in several places - I will look them up for you if you like):

“He allowed the Devil to drag Him into the depths of Hell as if He were the most wicked sinner who ever lived. He submitted Himself to death. He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control....For three days in the belly of the earth, He suffered as if He'd sinned every sin that exists." (Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory, September 1991, p.3)

"The death of Jesus Christ was not a physical death alone. If it had been a physical death, Abel would have paid the price for mankind. He was the first man that died because of honoring God and His Word. If it had been a physical death only, it wouldn't have worked! And if He hadn't died spiritually, that body never would have died." (Copeland, What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)

"How did Jesus then on the cross say, ‘My God.’ Because God was not His Father any more. He took upon Himself the nature of Satan. And I’m telling you Jesus is in the middle of that pit. He’s suffering all that there is to suffer, there is no suffering left . . . apart from Him. His emaciated, little wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing and the devil thinks He’s got Him destroyed. But, all of a sudden God started talking." (Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory TV program, TBN, April 21, 1991.)

"He allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell as if He were the most wicked sinner who ever lived ... Every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him ... [They]tortured Him beyond anything that anybody has ever conceived ... In a thunder of spiritual force, the voice of God spoke to the death-whipped, broken, punished spirit of Jesus ... [in] the pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life ... He was literally being reborn before the devil's very eyes. He began to flex His spiritual muscles ... Jesus Christ dragged Satan up and down the halls of hell ... Jesus ... was raised up a born-again man ... The day I realized that a born-again man had defeated Satan, hell, and death, I got so excited ...!" (Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory , September, 1991)

There are many more similar comments that are easy enough to find and should give anyone who believes in WOF pause to stop and reflect on what is being taught. You do not have to swallow the whole buffet to be WOF. There is, it appears, some rotting meat in the entree.

If something like this was being taught, and generally accepted, in the fellowship I am a member of I would feel I had no choice but to distance myself from them ASAP and if they did not recant, no longer identify myself with them. I would feel I had no choice, if I were to hold on to my integrity, no matter how much I loved the other stuff they believed. This false teaching is, IMO, way too serious of a matter to pooh-pooh or ignore. To believe in it is scary.
IMO.

~Jim

Here is an audio clip that deals with what you posted, Jim M.

From Bible.ca

Kenneth Copeland gives us his view of Christology which he learned from Kenneth Hagin. Copeland claims that the Holy Spirit revealed this to him. He says that the Holy Spirit told him that Jesus was born again twice. Jesus was never born again even once, because he never sinned and did not need redemption like us. Copelend confuses two completely different concepts of "born again" and "Christ the firstborn from the dead." But it gets worse. Copeland claims the Holy Spirit also told him that any man could have defeated the devil and be our savior.

You, or anyone else for that matter, can listen to the almost one and a half minute clip. That is, if you so desire.

The audio clip:

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-copeland-death-christ.ram

Just go through all the steps, and if you have any problems all you should have to do is just cancel the setup at the end and it will still load the clip for you to listen to.

 

[JimB]

I'll never understand why many of you waste your time engaging Jim M. His motives have been clear for so long that even a blind man can see them. He starts these threads with this deceptive air of sincerity and then works his way through the thread blasting at the people he desires to criticize. He is only looking for that opportunity when he starts these threads.

Jim obviously has it in for the Word-Faith and many Pentecostals and Charismatics who are not in Vineyard and worshipping at the John Wimber altar.

VW, for the record, I am not a John Wimber follower. I came into the Vineyard five years after his death (most Vineyard pastors today are post-Wimber, BTW) and, while I respect the leadership the gave the movement during his years, I have no ties to him whatsoever nor am I his blind disciple.

I was simply responding to Chili’s post that the claim that the ‘Jesus became a sinner, doctrine taught in some (though not all) WOF circles was bogus. Personally, I like Copeland, find him entertaining, and do not doubt his sincerity. But I believe he has an erroneous doctrine about the ‘Spiritual Death of Christ’ belief and I do think the doctrine is a dangerous. That said, I am open to hear someone clarify the statements he made I listed in my post. I hope they have, as some think, been taken out of context and are not his true beliefs.

~Jim

 

[JimB]

Here is an audio clip that deals with what you posted, Jim M.

From Bible.ca

You, or anyone else for that matter, can listen to the almost one and a half minute clip. That is, if you so desire.

The audio clip:

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-copeland-death-christ.ram

Just go through all the steps, and if you have any problems all you should have to do is just cancel the setup at the end and it will still load the clip for you to listen to.

I listened to the clip, ProAm, which is only 1:26 minutes long and, because the clip lacks context, I can only guess that KC really means, as he stated, that Jesus was a “twice born man” (quote) who “whipped Satan in his own domain”, that is, if I understand him correctly, means that Jesus was born again. He linked it to the scripture that said Christ was the first born among many brethren and I feel he has completely misinterpreted/misapplied that scripture. If he did not mean that – which I hope he didn’t – what did he mean? The out-of-context clip does nothing to clarify the issue.

And he did say that Jesus (quote) “did have to go through spiritual death”.

Furthermore, KC states clearly (though out of context) that I or anyone else “could have done the same thing Jesus did”. I hope he only means that we too can whip Satan in his own domain, but that was unclear. It leaves one wondering, considering the other things said on the clip.

Maybe you can help us understand KC position a little better. I want to believe the best.

~Jim

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Just in case the mod post was missed

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20290182&postcount=51

 

[ProAmerican]

I listened to the clip, ProAm, which is only 1:26 minutes long. I and, because the clip lacks context, I can only guess that KC really means, as he stated, that Jesus was a “twice born man” (quote) who “whipped Satan in his own domain”, that is, if I understand him correctly, means that Jesus was born again. He linked it to the scripture that said Christ was the first born among many brethren and I feel he has completely misinterpreted/misapplied that scripture. If he did not mean that – which I hope he didn’t – what did he mean? The out-of-context clip does nothing to clarify the issue.

And he did say that Jesus (quote) “did have to go through spiritual death”.

Furthermore, KC states clearly (though out of context) that I or anyone else “could have done the same thing Jesus did”. I hope he only means that we too can whip Satan in his own domain, but that was unclear. It leaves one wondering, considering the other things said on the clip.

Maybe you can help us understand KC position a little better. I want to believe the best.

~Jim

I have read, and re-read Copeland's statements multiple times concerning Jesus supposedly being "born-again." I have also listened to that clip which I provided multiple times. It is good to be able to listen to what comes out of a person's own mouth.

The conclusion that I come to is that Copeland's teaching on this is definitely not Orthodox and Biblical.

That being said, is his teaching on this just simply abberant or is it downright heretical?

That's the question that needs to be answered, and sometimes, we as Christians, can look at a matter in such a way, so as not to take someone's words out of context ,that we don't realize that what they are saying is staring us right in the face.

Copeland has said 1.) that Jesus was a born again man. 2.) that he, Jesus, being a twice-born man, defeated Satan in his own domain, and Copeland buttressed his position on this when he said the word "too" in reference to himself when the Holy Spirit supposedly said to him that he could have whipped the Devil too, since he was also a "born-again" man also.

He said, Oh yeah, if you'd had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could've done the same thing, cause you're a reborn man too.

Copeland, at the very least, should recant on his use of the word "born-again" in reference to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never sinned, hence there was no need for Him to be "born-again."

Secondly, Copeland, or anyone else for that matter, is not a "born-again" man "too," like Jesus, since Jesus was never "born-again" and didn't need to be, ever.

 

[chilifrankplate]

You still say we are calling Jesus a sinner, and I am continually saying that He is not! HE WHO KNEW NO SIN, WAS MADE TO BE SIN FOR US!!! YOU CANNOT BE A SINNER IF YOU HAVE COMMITED NO SIN, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

 

[FireOfGod]

Alright now, everyone, take a pill. In fact, take a lot because if you don't your heads might 'splode. And we all know that would not be very good.

We could leave it at this: Some believe in WOF, others love the WOF'ers, but are skeptical about the doctrine.

But I'm sure it can't be left at that of course.

 

[ProAmerican]

You still say we are calling Jesus a sinner, and I am continually saying that He is not! HE WHO KNEW NO SIN, WAS MADE TO BE SIN FOR US!!! YOU CANNOT BE A SINNER IF YOU HAVE COMMITED NO SIN, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Jesus Christ never took upon Himself the nature of satan, contrary to what Copeland said. For Christ to take upon Himself satan's nature, which satan acquired when he fell from grace, would require Christ to have personally committed a sin, which Christ never did. Christ did bear the sins of man, but Christ never personally committed sin.

Secondly, Christ was never "born-again", as Copeland has said. Man needs to be born-again, but not Christ.

 

[FireOfGod]

Jesus Christ never took upon Himself the nature of satan, contrary to what Copeland said. For Christ to take upon Himself satan's nature, which satan acquired when he fell from grace, would require Christ to have personally committed a sin, which Christ never did. Christ did bear the sins of man, but Christ never personally committed sin.

Secondly, Christ was never "born-again", as Copeland has said. Man needs to be born-again, but not Christ.

TOLD YA! Can't simply just leave it at that...

"That" being what I said before.