Is there a GENUINE argument against WoF? (WOF ONLY)

[PeteKay]

Sorry about that! I edited the first post to include just the question. I don't know how to delete an entire post. Can you help? Thanks.

 

[Optimax]

Sorry about that! I edited the first post to include just the question. I don't know how to delete an entire post. Can you help? Thanks.

If you would like to continue the discussion start a thread in the debate section.

 

[Debtfree]

Hi Sheepdog

Some people are not happy unless they have something to argue about

You hit the nail on the head. People think that you have to be poor, sick etc. in order to be a Christian, and that is exactly what the devil wants. If your poor or sick you will be ineffective for the cause of Christ. You can't give...you can't display His glory in your body etc.

Most are just jealous of believers who are successful in ALL areas of life.
Debtfree

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hmmm, would like to follow up opn that guys, but dont want to derail the thread.

As far as arguments against WOF, in general, there are none that satisfy me. Some of the peripheral things like JDS and little gods are simply misunderstandings from some combination of overzealous preachers stating things in hyperbolic form, overemphasizing for effect; and/or the misinterpretation of those words by one with a predisposed bias against WOF.

Though you wrote more than this (and all of what you wrote I more than agree on), I think that the point you bring up is more than valid---regarding both the issue of using hyberbole...which would not be a problem for most growing up in WOF circles/understanding the culture of how people operate & use certain terms (though that may be the side of me speaking that has a love for anthropology---as I do enjoy researching differing theological circles/diversities and seeing how much language makes a difference, )

And when it comes to many of the ideas in WOF, it's always amazing to see how many of those same principles indeed were taught all throughout the history of the early Church in one form or another. Simply look up kats such as Martin Luther, for example, when it comes to concepts such as spiritual death (which is exactly the same as others in WOF have always believed when it comes to saying that Jesus was made a sinner at the cross). Or, in light of this discussion, the issue of walking in authority and being made into a little "god" when it comes to Adam or believers. As He stated when discussing verse 6 of Psalm 81 (82) (‘Dii estis, et filii Excelsi omnes&#8217----in the interlinear gloss when he distinguishes between ‘being gods’ and ‘being sons of God’:

‘I say to you who are good: You are gods because you are born of God from the Holy Spirit, not through nature: and you are all sons through the adoption of the most high God the Father.’ To be a god is thus to be born from the Holy Spirit, the spirit which makes one just before God.
​

Luther adds in the marginal gloss that here the speaker ‘passes from the deceitful body to the true one;’ he moves from his own goodness to that of God’s. The imagery of the scholion is even stronger: ‘…you are of God and are not men…gods and sons of the most high are recalled by him to his own condition (statum).’ To be deified is to be called back from human sinfulness to God’s own state. Through the birth of the Holy Spirit in the believer, God adopts the person, and brings them up to his own state"


For anothe example of how much history shows the same of WOF already being discussed, Kenneth Hagin in his book, The Believer's Authority, states in his forward: "Back in the 1940's, I asked myself the question, "Do we have authority that we don't know about-that we haven't discovered-that we're not using?". Later, he went on to prove, starting at p.1, that we do based on the premise of Ephesians 1:16-23; Ephesians 2:1-7; Ephesians 3:14-19; Ephesians 6:10-18 and stating: "Because this book is based on Ephesians, let me encourage you to read the first three chapters over and over again for several days."

As Hagin also wrote in one of his other books:

We are accepted by God to reign as kings in life. We are no longer servants in the realm of spiritual death, but we have passed out of death, Satan's realm, into the realm of the heavenlies. Man was never made to be a slave. He was made to reign as king under God. He was made on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority.[4] (Emphasis mine)​

Hagin further writes, “God made man His understudy. He made him king, to rule over everything that had life. Man was master. Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms of equality with God.” (both quotes from his book Zoe: The God-Kind of Life).

Even before Hagin---or any other teacher in the WOF Movement, Martin Luther again echoed the same exact concepts that were brought up...as seen when he said clearly in a sermon on John 19:

Observe, what great transcendent comfort we have in that God awakens in us also the same power he exercises in Christ, and bestows upon us equal authority. As he made him sit in heavenly places, above all power and might, and everything that can be named; so has he invested us also with the same power, that those who believe have all power over heaven and earth. This we have in the words he left behind him; and they are so powerful, that when they are spoken by us, they avail as much as if he himself were on earth and spake them in the majesty and glory in which he now exists. And this is the power we have from his resurrection and ascension; there he gives us power to, kill and to make alive, to consign to the devil and to rescue from him.​

That said, I could easily name 3 WOF teachers off the bat who'd agree 100% with that statement and have been saying the same for years----whether with Jesse Duplantis or Myles Monroe or Joyce Myers and many others when it comes to their views of walking in authority as sons/daughters of the Most High...or how being "little gs" is about being bought by the Blood of CHrist/Redeemed by the Spirit and made into representatives again of the Lord and His Power....agents through whom He can show Himself to the world, as well as those who are given authority in His name (As John 10 and Psalm 82 goes, alongside II Peter 1 on sharing in the divine nature). But it's often ignored by those in circles that're "Heresy Hunters" and not really concerned about discussing WOF.



One cannot quarrentine a concept/idea...especially when given by the Lord. And it does make a difference, IMHO, when people chose to come out of their circles to experience life in other camps and see what has already been said----whether it be in WOF for those choosing to come out of their background and experience life with other believers from a myriad of denominations..or with those not of WOF who may choose to do research on other camps and see if there're any similarities between what's taught.

I'm very glad I was able to experience life growing up in a myriad of movements/theological camps and see the workings of the Lord in all of them for some time, especially concerning the consistency of insights found in similar groups serving the Kingdom Of God... and I've been reminded more than ever before how most Believers live their entire lives in a particular box (church or denomination) and do not even know that the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) flows from box to box to box and so on. He will not be restrained nor contained within a single box. In further example, when it comes to the concept of "little gods", it's always amazing to see how much similarities I discovered when being in liturgical circles such as Anglican, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and discussing with others in those camps---especially if studying the history of the Early Church and researching others from Oriegen to Athanasius and many others who used terminology of "gods" in reference to themselves and believers when came to the concept of redeemption/being made like the Lord---also known as "Theosis", for others wishing to do more research. I appreciate those within the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the ways in which they phrased/clearly defined concepts in Early History---though in interacting with others of that background, it's not surprising to see many not have issue with it. The "little gods thing" (in the WoF wars - even though it really has nothing to do with WoF) has really never been anything but a paradigmatic/semantic brouhaha about what this or that TERM means in this or that paradigm. The Catholic/Orthodox have always been more "mysically" oriented, so I wouldn't expect it to bother 'em particularly in a conceptual sense...as I've rarely heard them complain as much.


.In my view, I must say that those within the EO/Catholic traditions (alongside Martin Luther too) simply have the more "refined" terminology for defining the concept of THEOSIS than many of the prominent teachers in WOF have done, even though most in WOF have essentially said the same thing in deed/thought. I think the main problem with many is one of "Slang", carelessness on certain terminology and hyberbole that's taken to a level of being considered "herectical" by others

Imagine someone saying "Man, you're so HOT/on fire right now!!!" or "That's Totally Wicked" when someone tells them something neat. Both of those terms are used in differing circles to convey ideas of excitment/being on "the cutting edge" of things..but they may not be used in other circles. However, imagine another coming along hearing the terminology and then concluding "You're not LITERALLY ON FIRE!!! STOP CRYING WOLF and GIVING FALSE ALARMS OF DANGER!!" or someone saying "How dare you say that something cool is 'wicked' as if it's evil?!!!"..



People would simply stare--as the expressions/"slang" is being taken out of context. It's the same thing with many in WOF--whether with terms of "made in the god class" to indicate being made special/made in His Image with many of His Divine Aspects apart of us and our roles as Dominion Keepers/Rulers or being redeemed...or with being "little christs"/incarnations of Christ" to mean those replicating what Christ did in living life as a man empowered by the Spirit of God to do the Lords Work in the World and representing Him.

Granted, however, as one once said to me elsewhere,

"Faith teachers have also used unnecessary language to teach important Biblical truths and have stirred the waters unnecessarily. We could use less controversial language and get the same results. Why say "we are equal with God" and then have to go back and explain that you did not mean that we never submit to God and stuff like that. Talking about our union and identification with Christ will get the same result (helping people to understand our importance in the body of Christ and our authority)"
​

And even with WOF, there're various other things I tend to have issue with (regarding the lack of study/addressment in Church History in some of the leaders whereas it's mainly those within various WOF Churches---mainly "underground" WOF circles--who're exceptions & have done their homework for years yet never get acknowledged because they're not seen on TBN/"Not A Celebrity or Sensational As Others").....and many of them with striking similarities to Early Church History. The same can be seen in a myriad of camps, whether the Emerging/Emergent Church or the Organic/"Simple"/Home Church movement and many others with the concepts they've developed---some of which were done after doing research on history and others that seemed to be developed in a vaccum without interaction from others. And as said best by another:

For during the Reformation, the Reformers were opposed to “radical reformers“ ( //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_reformation ) as much as they were opposed to the Papists--with "Radical Reformers" being many Anabaptist groups throughout Europe, as they responded to what was believed to be both the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church and the expanding Magisterial Protestant movement led by Martin Luther and many others (and for many, seeing how many were being persecuted in a police state by Lutherans, it was more than reasonable).

On one hand you had the Papists who wanted to have the Tradition of the Church without Scripture & on the other hand you had the radicals/enthusiasts that wanted to have Scripture (privately interpreted) without the Tradition of the Church. Both concepts were wrong & either lead to a religion disconnected from Scripture or a religion disconnected from history.

What I see with much of the “radicals”, be they Word of Faith movement to the hyperpreterists is that they want to behave like the Bible just fell from the sky one day, or perhaps they are likely to think some guy found golden plates in a cave or some other guy was visited by Gabriel telling him to “recite”. The go-it-alone approach to the Bible & Christianity leads people to become cults or Popes of one. Jesus designed the Church to be ONE BODY, ONE community of believers — not just you & your Bible alone.

..... some guy or gal thinks he/she has found something new that no one has ever known & then they go about trying to replace 2000 years of Christianity with their new version.

​

As valuable as it is to rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit and how He's able to give revelation/insights without reference to others precedding you who already had the thoughts, learning of History is a must. __________________

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I mean the arguments against it we have heard today are almost pitiful.

Apparently, we believe the Holy Spirit died on the cross

Jesus sinned

That we should NEVER give to the poor

That it is ok to manipulate people for money

That we have a false Christ

I wonder if anyone is actually going to take issue with something we are genuinely saying!!!

Blessings all,
Ben

Sincerely, I wouldn't worry about....as the same individuals I believe you referencing concerning arguments are ones I and others have had to contend with over on the discussion forums at "CARM" for years...with many of their arguments refuted over the years/examined and often times with them ignoring it due to the crusade against WOF.

It's a trip......but then again, as the old saying goes, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"...and if you'd like, I'd love to give out some references to discussions that've occured elsewhere on the same topics you brought up and answers given.

Shalom...

 

[WileyCoyote]

Bro, we need you over in the debate area. You are super smart.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Though you wrote more than this (and all of what you wrote I more than agree on), I think that the point you bring up is more than valid---regarding both the issue of using hyberbole...which would not be a problem for most growing up in WOF circles/understanding the culture of how people operate & use certain terms (though that may be the side of me speaking that has a love for anthropology---as I do enjoy researching differing theological circles/diversities and seeing how much language makes a difference, )

And when it comes to many of the ideas in WOF, it's always amazing to see how many of those same principles indeed were taught all throughout the history of the early Church in one form or another. Simply look up kats such as Martin Luther, for example, when it comes to concepts such as spiritual death (which is exactly the same as others in WOF have always believed when it comes to saying that Jesus was made a sinner at the cross). Or, in light of this discussion, the issue of walking in authority and being made into a little "god" when it comes to Adam or believers. As He stated when discussing verse 6 of Psalm 81 (82) (‘Dii estis, et filii Excelsi omnes’)----in the interlinear gloss when he distinguishes between ‘being gods’ and ‘being sons of God’:

‘I say to you who are good: You are gods because you are born of God from the Holy Spirit, not through nature: and you are all sons through the adoption of the most high God the Father.’ To be a god is thus to be born from the Holy Spirit, the spirit which makes one just before God.
​

Luther adds in the marginal gloss that here the speaker ‘passes from the deceitful body to the true one;’ he moves from his own goodness to that of God’s. The imagery of the scholion is even stronger: ‘…you are of God and are not men…gods and sons of the most high are recalled by him to his own condition (statum).’ To be deified is to be called back from human sinfulness to God’s own state. Through the birth of the Holy Spirit in the believer, God adopts the person, and brings them up to his own state"


For anothe example of how much history shows the same of WOF already being discussed, Kenneth Hagin in his book, The Believer's Authority, states in his forward: "Back in the 1940's, I asked myself the question, "Do we have authority that we don't know about-that we haven't discovered-that we're not using?". Later, he went on to prove, starting at p.1, that we do based on the premise of Ephesians 1:16-23; Ephesians 2:1-7; Ephesians 3:14-19; Ephesians 6:10-18 and stating: "Because this book is based on Ephesians, let me encourage you to read the first three chapters over and over again for several days."

As Hagin also wrote in one of his other books:

We are accepted by God to reign as kings in life. We are no longer servants in the realm of spiritual death, but we have passed out of death, Satan's realm, into the realm of the heavenlies. Man was never made to be a slave. He was made to reign as king under God. He was made on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority.[4] (Emphasis mine)
​

Hagin further writes, “God made man His understudy. He made him king, to rule over everything that had life. Man was master. Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms of equality with God.” (both quotes from his book Zoe: The God-Kind of Life).

Even before Hagin---or any other teacher in the WOF Movement, Martin Luther again echoed the same exact concepts that were brought up...as seen when he said clearly in a sermon on John 19:

Observe, what great transcendent comfort we have in that God awakens in us also the same power he exercises in Christ, and bestows upon us equal authority. As he made him sit in heavenly places, above all power and might, and everything that can be named; so has he invested us also with the same power, that those who believe have all power over heaven and earth. This we have in the words he left behind him; and they are so powerful, that when they are spoken by us, they avail as much as if he himself were on earth and spake them in the majesty and glory in which he now exists. And this is the power we have from his resurrection and ascension; there he gives us power to, kill and to make alive, to consign to the devil and to rescue from him.
​

That said, I could easily name 3 WOF teachers off the bat who'd agree 100% with that statement and have been saying the same for years----whether with Jesse Duplantis or Myles Monroe or Joyce Myers and many others when it comes to their views of walking in authority as sons/daughters of the Most High...or how being "little gs" is about being bought by the Blood of CHrist/Redeemed by the Spirit and made into representatives again of the Lord and His Power....agents through whom He can show Himself to the world, as well as those who are given authority in His name (As John 10 and Psalm 82 goes, alongside II Peter 1 on sharing in the divine nature). But it's often ignored by those in circles that're "Heresy Hunters" and not really concerned about discussing WOF.

​

One cannot quarrentine a concept/idea...especially when given by the Lord. And it does make a difference, IMHO, when people chose to come out of their circles to experience life in other camps and see what has already been said----whether it be in WOF for those choosing to come out of their background and experience life with other believers from a myriad of denominations..or with those not of WOF who may choose to do research on other camps and see if there're any similarities between what's taught.

I'm very glad I was able to experience life growing up in a myriad of movements/theological camps and see the workings of the Lord in all of them for some time, especially concerning the consistency of insights found in similar groups serving the Kingdom Of God... and I've been reminded more than ever before how most Believers live their entire lives in a particular box (church or denomination) and do not even know that the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) flows from box to box to box and so on. He will not be restrained nor contained within a single box. In further example, when it comes to the concept of "little gods", it's always amazing to see how much similarities I discovered when being in liturgical circles such as Anglican, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and discussing with others in those camps---especially if studying the history of the Early Church and researching others from Oriegen to Athanasius and many others who used terminology of "gods" in reference to themselves and believers when came to the concept of redeemption/being made like the Lord---also known as "Theosis", for others wishing to do more research. I appreciate those within the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the ways in which they phrased/clearly defined concepts in Early History---though in interacting with others of that background, it's not surprising to see many not have issue with it. The "little gods thing" (in the WoF wars - even though it really has nothing to do with WoF) has really never been anything but a paradigmatic/semantic brouhaha about what this or that TERM means in this or that paradigm. The Catholic/Orthodox have always been more "mysically" oriented, so I wouldn't expect it to bother 'em particularly in a conceptual sense...as I've rarely heard them complain as much.


.In my view, I must say that those within the EO/Catholic traditions (alongside Martin Luther too) simply have the more "refined" terminology for defining the concept of THEOSIS than many of the prominent teachers in WOF have done, even though most in WOF have essentially said the same thing in deed/thought. I think the main problem with many is one of "Slang", carelessness on certain terminology and hyberbole that's taken to a level of being considered "herectical" by others

Imagine someone saying "Man, you're so HOT/on fire right now!!!" or "That's Totally Wicked" when someone tells them something neat. Both of those terms are used in differing circles to convey ideas of excitment/being on "the cutting edge" of things..but they may not be used in other circles. However, imagine another coming along hearing the terminology and then concluding "You're not LITERALLY ON FIRE!!! STOP CRYING WOLF and GIVING FALSE ALARMS OF DANGER!!" or someone saying "How dare you say that something cool is 'wicked' as if it's evil?!!!"..



People would simply stare--as the expressions/"slang" is being taken out of context. It's the same thing with many in WOF--whether with terms of "made in the god class" to indicate being made special/made in His Image with many of His Divine Aspects apart of us and our roles as Dominion Keepers/Rulers or being redeemed...or with being "little christs"/incarnations of Christ" to mean those replicating what Christ did in living life as a man empowered by the Spirit of God to do the Lords Work in the World and representing Him.

Granted, however, as one once said to me elsewhere,

"Faith teachers have also used unnecessary language to teach important Biblical truths and have stirred the waters unnecessarily. We could use less controversial language and get the same results. Why say "we are equal with God" and then have to go back and explain that you did not mean that we never submit to God and stuff like that. Talking about our union and identification with Christ will get the same result (helping people to understand our importance in the body of Christ and our authority)"
​

And even with WOF, there're various other things I tend to have issue with (regarding the lack of study/addressment in Church History in some of the leaders whereas it's mainly those within various WOF Churches---mainly "underground" WOF circles--who're exceptions & have done their homework for years yet never get acknowledged because they're not seen on TBN/"Not A Celebrity or Sensational As Others").....and many of them with striking similarities to Early Church History. The same can be seen in a myriad of camps, whether the Emerging/Emergent Church or the Organic/"Simple"/Home Church movement and many others with the concepts they've developed---some of which were done after doing research on history and others that seemed to be developed in a vaccum without interaction from others. And as said best by another:

For during the Reformation, the Reformers were opposed to “radical reformers“ ( //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_reformation ) as much as they were opposed to the Papists--with "Radical Reformers" being many Anabaptist groups throughout Europe, as they responded to what was believed to be both the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church and the expanding Magisterial Protestant movement led by Martin Luther and many others (and for many, seeing how many were being persecuted in a police state by Lutherans, it was more than reasonable).

On one hand you had the Papists who wanted to have the Tradition of the Church without Scripture & on the other hand you had the radicals/enthusiasts that wanted to have Scripture (privately interpreted) without the Tradition of the Church. Both concepts were wrong & either lead to a religion disconnected from Scripture or a religion disconnected from history.

What I see with much of the “radicals”, be they Word of Faith movement to the hyperpreterists is that they want to behave like the Bible just fell from the sky one day, or perhaps they are likely to think some guy found golden plates in a cave or some other guy was visited by Gabriel telling him to “recite”. The go-it-alone approach to the Bible & Christianity leads people to become cults or Popes of one. Jesus designed the Church to be ONE BODY, ONE community of believers — not just you & your Bible alone.

..... some guy or gal thinks he/she has found something new that no one has ever known & then they go about trying to replace 2000 years of Christianity with their new version.

​

As valuable as it is to rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit and how He's able to give revelation/insights without reference to others precedding you who already had the thoughts, learning of History is a must. __________________

This is an excellent post. I will need to read it several times to get it all. I have printed it out for further study. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post it.

Peace...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Bro, we need you over in the debate area. You are super smart.

If/when I'm able to, I'll try to head over there....

Wanted to add to what I mentioned earlier...

When the issue came up over at the discussion boards at CARM--which I'll gladly email you the reference for, as I cannot give out links yet till later, if interested---someone said this to me

What I'm still trying to figure out is this: why do WOF advocates think that 'proving' (and I'm not even willing to concede that that has been done) that Eastern Orthodox church fathers has anything to do with what their teachers espouse?

This is little more than a historical anachronism - a variation of the 'similarity implies descent' fallacy.

Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Capps - NONE of them - has EVER to my knowledge quoted Athanasius. In fact, I would dare say that MOST of them wouldn't be able to tell you ANYTHING about the man except - Kenyon might know there was such a creed way back yonder. The rank and file WOFer who has been trained to believe that his theology can all be found in the Bible sees no need to discuss Athanasius anyway. You can list the other Church Fathers who supposedly endorse the WOF concept. In reality, of course, NONE of them do because they so explicitly qualify the teaching.

This presentation simply fails to validate anything other than long ago some guys taught some words that some folks nowadays - all of whom despise learning as 'book smart' (but like to use it when they think it benefits them) - can use to validate their assumptions.

This isn't theology; it's pretzel making.

​

And as another stated,

Why is it that in all of these years of watching WOF TV, never once have I ever seen THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES who made these initial claims quote Luther or Calvin or Spurgeon to justify it?

It is an after-the-fact justification and in virtually all cases, it is unwarranted.​

To that, sadly, both comments seemed to be nothing more than the fallacy of failing to show that what the EO Church Fathers meant was different than what many within WOF have shown--and then raising alarm as if any point they have against anything has basis.

On the issue of "after-the-fact" research, how does this actually address those camps that are WOF and who did study Church History long before? To not take that into account is what gives room for caricatures---just as it is with people claiming all in WOF are what one sees in prominent T.V. Preachers/TBN or that all believe in "Speak it/Reap It, Blab It/Grab It", and various other caricatures brought up.




On the issue of not knowing "Church History" regarding many Faith Teachers, what comes to my mind is this basic scenario: WHen a Church in CHina reads the Bible/understands something that was found in the Reformation--even though they have no knowledge of the Reformation--the concept being referenced later when they do more research is no unwarranted? For that's the way the logic extends...

Does the Spirit of the Lord reveal differing truths to various groups and lead them to research to find basis later? That's a basic part of research/study....and I know of one experience where one of my brothers who is Reformed encountered another from the Underground Church in China. He began questioning her on the concept of election/predestination---which is a Biblical concept regarding the Lord ordanining certain events and causes for people, like with Jeremiah being called to be a prophet from before He was born and like Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 discusses with us being predestined for becoming sons.

The Asian Believer made clear she had never heard of the terminology or the terms used--and she didn't care for them either since she did not see understanding the phrases on his terms as essential for being a disciple. Surprsingly, though, when he saw her discussing what the Word of God said on the issue, he was amazed to see that she essentially had an accurate understanding of the terms he came to understand within TULIP and Reformed Theology outside of any interaction with Church History. And the same with many others in her group, just as it was with others.

Just because an idea promoted in one group with leaders who may not reference others in history who've promoted the same DOES NOT means that the concept is invalid or that it's invalid when those seeking to do their homework/find consistency and accuracy discover the same concept that was hashed out in previous times and repeated. And on the issue, it's already intriguing enough to see how often it's the case that what's used as a barometer for evaluating "truth" is flawed (as is often the case with many "discernment ministries" that go off of the frame of reference or interpretation of their denomination or certain aspect of church in CHurch history/majority thought as the standard)

As one of my brothers in the Lord (Lionel Woods) said best on his ministry known as "Black and Reformed":

t

Martin Luther is a legend for anyone who calls themselves Reformed in any sense of the word. The recovery of the Doctrine of Justification and the Great Divorce from Rome are monumental events in the History of Christendom but for whom?


Let me explain again what I mean. Was the Reformation a worldwide revival or an Anglo-Saxon revival? What about Christians who were under Islamic persecution in Northern and even Middle Africa? What was going on in other parts of the world where Christianity had already taken roots? I think this is a huge question to consider. We must first understand that Christianity was not relegated to the European continent. Many had fled Egypt and other northern African countries and had taken the Gospel with them also. Ethiopia is one place that comes to mind.

​

That I thought was more than accurate...as it's interesting (and I've come to view it as important) to look at history - in general, and Church history in particular - through the lens of people groups other than the ones with the most money or loudest voices/in the majority for evaluating. Not everyone was affected by the religious disagreements of Enlightenment-era Europe. I believe we should take into account the experience of the church in East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, etc. They all have their story to tell as the gospel was spread to their contexts....and all are given their respective rights when it comes to theology and people understanding that there's no need for making room group being forced to adapt to what another is used to/wants above all. Same with WOF.....for just because many in it may not have been aware or even affected by what's often exalted in the Reformation or groups people often say define "Orthodoxy" does not mean they do not have merit.


Some may wonder "You couldn't settle for a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a chosen people? A peculiar people? A new man in Christ? A friend of God?"

But the reality is that they don't have to---as many of us on the boards use terms in our churches that are not found in the Bible and yet they describe certain ideas, such as "being on fire for the Lord" or "intoxicated with His prescence/love" or other things like "No Creed But CHRIST".

Saying "god class"--for those gracious enough to ask those within the movement what they mean in their daily practice/usage of it--should have any problem with.

Same thing when in Hebraic/Jewish Circles and they don't use the terms "Incarnation" to describe the Lord taking on flesh--though people would possibly throw fits about that as well...alongside others in history when terms such as "god" and others were used in reference to themselves and how the Lord sees us. Heard a story from one of my Reformed Brothers on how he was discussing with some people in the Underground Church from China--and in asking them if they had ever heard of the concepts of predestination/election, they said flatly that they had NEVER HEARD OF THE TERMS nor cared to use them. However, in demonstration, the way they viewed things showed they understood the concepts quite clearly that he had come to think could only be framed within the language he had grown up with and saw as the most scholarly. He realized they had the freedom to do otherwise---and it was divisive to come into their ranks demanding they adapt to his language to symbolize something when he was not apart of that group nor familar with the terms they used to portray things.


It really goes down to the issue of cultural concessions and understanding there should be grace given to differing groups...and if confused, it's not always a matter of the group failing to do something--but often of the person looking from the outside in. In another example, my friend grew up Reformed...and yet even he realized how culture make a difference. Most of his friends and relatives from home, will never read a blog, never listen to Piper, or Sproul (they wouldn’t understand the Latin and philosophical language if they would anyway), words such as Hermeneutics, Exposition, Expository Preaching and Homiletics or "Propitiation" and other terms that will be very difficult for them to understand. His grandmother can’t read pass the third grade and many of the people who need the gospel where I am from and even in South Dallas are overlooked and talked passed and ignored---or even belittled due to not using the same language as "educated" people even though many of them do have a great grasp on certain concepts within scripture

And again, as my brother in the Lord (Lionel Woods) said best:

Today though there are invincible theologians and whoever gets in good is in good and whoever makes the naughty lists well they are ostracized and whatever they say or do is either labeled bad or ignored though the Spirit may be speaking through them equally. I guess in my struggle for theological truth I have ignored what is clearly written. Because of theological alignments I have said mean things to the family of God and have not given an equal ear because my favorite theologian didn’t accept them.

We see that huge in the Emerging movement. Since a theologian disagrees pretty much all of what they have to say is “post-modern”. Which is the new “heretic”. Not to mention we feel it is our job to play the role of the Holy Spirit in peoples live and if the person questions these gentleman they are “trying to do something new” and one of the favorite quotes is “ignoring 2000 years of Church History”.

These are the same individuals who applaud Calvin and Luther for their work. Did God stop working at the Reformation? Was the Reformation the end point of God’s dealing with His people? If not why are we not open to critique and refocusing on the scriptures? Oh, that’s right because Sola Scriptura (the Reformation way) is the final authority of truth.

It is funny that Doctrine was developed 1500 years later. Though many will say “no it was always there just articulated then”. Okay I am off my soapbox, I am just saying we need to be careful that’s all. I think it is good to read the works of our great theologians today, but it is better for you to study the scriptures and pray for clarity. It seems that we have given up on what made Luther challenge the papacy. I have no desire for people to follow me or my leanings, I do however ask that ALL BELIEVERS have an equal voice and that we abstain from name calling with people who disagree with us. Just because someone has not read the latest book recommend by your favorite theologian and would rather read their bible doesn’t make them any less theologically astute.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is an excellent post. I.

Many thanks for the encouragement..

On a side note, wanted to add some more things which I left out from previously. One of which is a teaching on the issue of who we are in Christ---the issue of being "The Righteousness of God in Christ" (which is also blasted within WOF many times by others outside of it)--that may bless you ( //frimmin.com/faith/theosis.php# ):

Theosis, (also called divinization, deification, or transforming union) was one of the most important of early Christian doctrines, but it has become such a well-kept secret, that is nearly unknown to most contemporary laymen. It means participating in, and partaking of, God's Divinity. It is likely to sound so alien to our ears that we might quickly dismiss it as some heresy, rather than realize this is the heart of the Christian calling.

Yet, from the first chapter of Genesis, to Christ the Word of God, through the Apostles, to numerous saints, theologians, and Christian writers throughout the centuries and today, the message is clear: God made us to be like him, wants us to become like Him, and will ultimately transform us into being like him. From the second-century St. Ireneaus, to the twentieth-century C. S. Lewis, some theologians have used the most shocking language to bring home how shocking this gift of God is: "becoming gods," or even "becoming God."

Becoming God doesn't mean we become all-knowing, all-powerful, or that we remember saying "let there be light." It really means becoming Christ, or becoming divine—that God's God-ness is experienced and known not as something outside and separate, but as a part of our own being. It means knowing God as Jesus knew the Father, so like Jesus, we are with him, fully human, and fully divine.

This is a difficult teaching to accept at first. It is one thing to think of ourselves as children of God in the sense that, like all creation, we ultimately come from God. But it is quite another to believe in the biblical usage of the words children and sons, because their implications of likeness, growing up, and inheritance are much stronger than that. "the power to become children of God," (John 1:12) indicates something much more than the fact that he created us.

It would be less shocking to consider this transformation a purely moral one: that our goal of "godness" just means "goodness" or "godliness," in the moral sense, coupled with the reward of eternal life, another divine quality. It certainly is that, but the indications from both Scripture and Tradition are that it is much more—a transforming union with God that makes us also Christ, at once human and divine, as Jesus was. This is the completion and perfection of salvation, to become Sons and Daughters of God with, within, and like him, the Son of God.


Children of God

Paul teaches that as Adam was the first man, so Christ is the "last Adam," superseding all that has come before. All who are born in him will be children of God, so even more surely than we are children of Adam, we are the children of Christ. Elsewhere, he describes us as being given the "spirit of sons," and declares that "the Spirit and our spirit bear united witness that we are children of God. And if we are children, we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christs, sharing his sufferings so as to share his glory." (Rom. 8:15-17) Sharing his glory. I don't know how many times I might have read that or heard that without letting it hit me. We will share his glory!

Theosis is described in Scripture in many ways—children inheriting from their Father and growing up to be like their Father is just one example. This is present even in the first chapter of the Bible. After God creates animal life by telling the earth to produce every kind of creature (Gen. 1-24-25), God does something completely different with man. He makes man directly, not indirectly, and makes him "male and female" to be like him, charged with ruling the rest of creation. (1:26-27) The implication is man is a little god, by the grace of God. (Of course, Genesis 3 describes how something went wrong with that!)

Bride of Christ

Another image is the "divine marriage." Jesus is the Lover of the Church and the Christian soul. He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride. He will marry us, and we will become one with him. Jesus repeatedly described himself as the Bridegroom, probably bringing up the powerful love imagery of the Song of Songs to his listeners' minds. This image of theosis carries with it a powerful message of what changes us—Christ's unfailing and total passion for us. Theosis is considered the fruition of grace and love, nothing that comes to us by right or by nature. Our union with Christ is passionate, ardent, joyous and life-giving.

Paul describes this transformation of love as leading to a union so profound there are no barriers: "the two will become one body...This mystery applies to Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:31-32), which leads us to...

The Body of Christ

This image goes even farther in bringing home the depth and immediacy of theosis—the Body of Christ. This is the one we are probably most familiar with, and maybe we have become too familiar with it to be shocked by its spiritual implications. Bridegroom and bride will share their bodies intimately, but a persistent theme in Paul's revelation is that Christ lives in our bodies, and together, we are his body.
In other words, the Incarnation was not a just a one-time event, but is the pattern of how Christ chooses to work on Earth. As God the Son was incarnate in Jesus, the risen Christ indwells us, enfleshed in all his people. He literally lives within these cells of skin and blood. And if Christ, who is both human and divine, lives within us, we become both human and divine as well. A book title I saw recently said it well—One Jesus, Many Christs. Or, in Jesus' own words "I am the vine, you are the branches." How close is a living branch of a vine to that vine? It is part of the very same organism!

The divinized Christian is a living Eucharist, a vessel presenting God's spirit to the world, constantly welling up within them. He is transforming this world, by living within us, and we are his hands, feet, and mouths. Instead of asking why God allows so much suffering on Earth, we should ask ourselves why we allow it!

Light of the World

Another image of theosis is seen in the use of the words sun and light. Jesus identified himself as "the light of the world," yet on another occasion called his disciples the light of the world." John teaches us that He is the "true light that enlightens every one" (Jn.1:9) Paul says we are like mirrors that not only reflect God's brightness, but which are transformed into the light which they reflect.(2 Cor. 3:17-18)

There are many more Biblical images of this wonderful work of God. He changes us like living water welling up within us, by living in him and he in us, by knowing him, and by becoming his brothers ( Hebrews 2:10-12/) Hebrews 2 ), just to name a few more.

​

More than on point, IMHO...and I pray that it does bless you...

Even for many of the teachers in WOF, I investigated the writings and didn't see anywhere close to what has been said of them when I saw the totality of their words/the lives and beliefs of those following them up close. Not Benny Hinn, or Myles Monroe---who was the one I followed the most growing up (and even he clarified men are not dieties when the term "gods" is used in WOF...). Joyce Myers was the other one on my mind, as I've read the books/heard her words in context and I'm still surprised to see people come back to the wrong concepts as if she was ever saying men were "dieties"...and for more info:

• Video Clips of Joyce Meyer on “The Power of Words” and “Man is a ‘Little God.’” (wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=resources.meyer )----which I was very grateful--as the way she said some of the things she did in the clips were not simple 5-minute bites...and her explanation on "Little" gods was one of the best I know of, as it's exactly what many for WOF have said here regarding taking authority and using it for the sake of showing compassion/justice since that what the term means---one who is a Divine Agent of God's Instruction/Imperatives)....& for the main site, the article was entitled What's the Truth About Joyce Meyer and the Word-Faith Movement? ( ontruth.com/joycemeyer.html )

I enjoy much of the writings of Myles Monroe--who has done work with Benny Hinn. In one of his books which I own, Monroe wrote “He has created us to be His offspring. Therefore, He calls us ‘little gods.’”--with Munroe basing his statement on Psalm 82:6. What many do not acknowledge when focusing on the terms "god" is that they ignore the clarification he gave when he stated plainly:

"Now this does not mean that we are equal to God or that we are deity. Adam and Eve could fulfill their purpose only if they were relying on, and in constant communion with, the God of the Garden."

-Munroe, Myles Understanding the Purpose and Power of Prayer (New Kingsington, PA: Whitaker House, 2002), p. 33 )


​

Benny Hinn has also attempted to clarify his “little gods” statements. In response to his critics on a TBN broadcast, Hinn said,“We’re not God, we’re the children of God. We’re God-like in our spirit man….”-Spencer, James R. Heresy Hunters: Character Assassination in the Church (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1993), p. 108. If one desires more information, I would suggest investigating "VictoryWord's" site---as he documented the other clarifications/writings by the main WOF teachers and I researched them for verification. Haven't seen anything contrary yet---as indeed it seems to be the case that many of the faith teachers have not been presented properly when it comes to the "little gods" concept. Even in going to Creflo's Church, the same was the case there....specificallly during his series entitled "Growth Into Sonship"....



Add on Luther...

This is what I have often said, that faith makes of us lords, and love makes of us servants. Indeed, by faith we become gods and partakers of the divine nature and name, as is said in Psalms 82,6: "I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." But through love we become equal to the poorest. According to faith we are in need of nothing, and have an abundance; according to love we are servants of all. By faith we receive blessings from above, from God; through love we give them out below, to our neighbor. Even as Christ in his divinity stood in need of nothing, but in his humanity served everybody who had need of him. Of this we have spoken often enough, namely, that we also must by faith be born God's sons and gods, lords and kings, even as Christ is born true God of the Father in eternity; and again, come out of ourselves by love and help our neighbors with kind deeds, even as Christ became man to help us all-------Luther, Martin The Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), pp. 73, 74
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Add on Luther...

This is what I have often said, that faith makes of us lords, and love makes of us servants. Indeed, by faith we become gods and partakers of the divine nature and name, as is said in Psalms 82,6: "I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." But through love we become equal to the poorest. According to faith we are in need of nothing, and have an abundance; according to love we are servants of all. By faith we receive blessings from above, from God; through love we give them out below, to our neighbor. Even as Christ in his divinity stood in need of nothing, but in his humanity served everybody who had need of him. Of this we have spoken often enough, namely, that we also must by faith be born God's sons and gods, lords and kings, even as Christ is born true God of the Father in eternity; and again, come out of ourselves by love and help our neighbors with kind deeds, even as Christ became man to help us all-------Luther, Martin The Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), pp. 73, 74
​

I'm still amazed in witnessing how there's no such record of terminology regarding being "gods" as being such problem in Early CHurch History since they used the terminology with ease (for anyone honestly reading). IMHO, to say otherwise is to claim the nature of denial..... In example, here're some of the phrases many have issue with when it comes to WOF:

“We are Christ.”

“Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.”




​

Some of these are from Hagin Himself (and one from Benny Hinn, I think)....Now, with that said, let us take a simple one people can square with (from one of the PRIMARY Sources )

Theosis (lit. "ingodded," "becoming god," deification) in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is a vision of human potential for perfection, anticipated in ancient Greece, witnessed to in both the Old and New Testaments, and developed by Patristic Christian theologians of the first five centuries after Christ. This vision survived the fourth-century purges of heresy and persists yet today in Eastern Christianity as a challenge to Western theology. According to Vladimir Lossky, we are nothing less than "creatures called to gods" (The Vision of God). In the words of Irenaeus (120-202): "If the Word was made man, it is that men might become gods" (Against Heresies, Bk. V. Pref. col. 1035).

As Athanasius (293-373) said of the Incarnation of Christ: "God became man so that man might become God" (On the Incarnation of the Word, Bk. IV. par 65). The idea of theosis is that God and humanity progressively achieve a union in Christ which in the end both blurs and preserves the distinction between Creator and creation, as in a mirror perfectly reflecting the source of its
image

​

And for commentary:

Plato had already defined theosis as "likeness to God so far as possible" (Theaetetus). How far is possible is what was debated in the Platonic tradition. The Greek idea of theosis was incorporated into Patristic theology as theosis kata charin (ingodded according to gift or grace). As a gift of God, according to capacity, a person can become a "partaker of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Just as God, as Creator, crossed over from the divine realm and became a human, so human beings (through progressive participation in the divine nature) may cross over from creaturehood into the uncreated realm--a grace which restores the image and appropriates the likeness of God, as far as possible in this life and the next.

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis is understood to be grounded in Scriptures (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-35, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:1-2) and in the Apostolic Tradition according to its principal proponents (Origen, Clement, Ephrem, Macarius, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor). After the Orthodox acceptance of the views of Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) on the distinctions between divine energies and divine essence, the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis became defined as a "union (of energies) without confusion (of essence)" in which the essential distinction between Creator and creature eternally remains. As Orthodox Bishop Kalistos Ware writes:"In the Age to come, God is 'all in all,' but Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul." Each retains his or her own nature and personal identity. Yet all are filled with God's Spirit and perfected as creature (The Orthodox Way, 168).
​

As another hurch father said best ( Saint Maximus the Confessor ):

"A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God himself became man.... Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man's sake. This is what St Paul teaches mystically when he says, '...that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace'

• PHILOKALIA Volume II, page 178

One can go to the Philokalia (Gk. φιλοκαλία "love of the beautiful/good")-- a collection of texts by masters of the Eastern Orthodox, hesychast tradition, writing from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries on the disciplines of Christian prayer and a life dedicated to God---for further information. But the material is indeed fascinating. It was the case that many of the Church Fathers took the concept of theosis to mean that it goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in Jesus's person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time.



To be even more clear, all of the individuals noted were all individuals who actively stood against herectical teachings/concepts and were well revered for it/other contributions they made to the CHurch History that is often pitted against WOF as if they do not understand it or appreciate it........

People can say "Well, language changes over time...so when the early church fathers used the language of man being "gods", it just wasn't the same.."...but On the point of language changing meaning as the passing of time moves on, I've yet to see any evidence showing concretely that what the Church Father meant when it came to him saying "gods"---or, for that matter, how other church fathers used the language in the 1500'S was any different than how it's used today in WOF, especially seeing how often those who were apart of the Early Church often qualified their statements so that there'd be no confusion as to where they were coming from...and the same for those in WOF, who have often made clear when it comes to the terminology of "god" and what they've often said in saying "We DO NOT MEAN DIETIES"---and that when the term "ye are gods" is used, it's in the SAME exact way as the church fathers (as many say rulers/with divine authority)---yet even that's ignored and words are placed in people's mouths with Church History Ignored...

People do not understand the realities of history..and if Luther was not the same as WOF say, there needs to be evidence to show otherwise. Otherwise, it's an issue of semantics that one cannot get flustered about. People well realize that Martin Luther is the only one who gets to define his meaning in the way he meant...but for those against WOF, what I've noticed is that it's often the case that opponents all continually seem to give statements saying "That's not what Luther or the Fathers Meant!!!!!" and yet they do not deal with the way others used the language in EArly Church History and they way they defined things. For them to do so and then move on to condemn others saying "It seems to mean this" and say "You're taking people out of context, for What was the context of Luthers' Words???!!!" is Begging the Question (Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando)--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.


And it is also to speak without any evidence. Truly people are not aware of the reality of culture/history and study---as it has yet to be shown from those against WOF that Luther in all of his writings or other CHurch Fathers such as Athanasius to Origen to Clement and numerous others in their writings meant otherwise than many in WOF when the term "gods" is used. And until then, it seems reasonable than one can conclude in light of the lack of rebuttal that there really should be no problem since there's no evidence otherwise...


Wanted to be clear that the issue has been discussed many times already....and I've brought up the issue of Church History/Early Church Fathers (Theosis)..and the issue of how I tend to bring the perspectives of other theological camps along with me when it comes to WOF due to growing up in many theological camp. If wanting more information, one can go to CARM Discussion forums-----where other WOFers have dealt with the issue in light of opposition.....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is an excellent post. I will need to read it several times to get it all. I have printed it out for further study. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post it.

Peace...

Thank you for all that you do here on the forums---as you alongside others are an answered prayer. Saw all of the discussions on the debate forums, paticularly with others sand how it seemed many were taking alot of grief/misrepresentations placed upon yourselves as well as what occurs in WOF---and yet the ways in which you all responded on the issues was truly inspiring. To be able to network with you all is indeed a privelage.

Shalom...

 

[PastorJoey]

I don't believe that Adam was created on a equal status with God, as I've heard some WOF teachers say. I'm not 100 % convinced that Jesus spent 3 days in Hell either. Other than that I'm pretty much in agreement with You guys.
God Bless!

Hello Allen,

There are those who get over into the ditch and believe that they are God. Give me a break! Are they Omnipotent? Omnipresent or Omniscient? What planets have they created? Are they the beginning and the end? and whose God are they? Not mine.

No matter how much we are created like God, we still remain the creation and He the Creator. What authority or power we have is derived solely from Him and His presence. Without Him we are nothing.

As far as status goes, we have the status of Sons of God, not the status of God. We have the status of "gods", not "God".

1 John 3:1 KJV
(1) Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:

When Jesus said "ye are gods" He meant nothing more than rulers or lords of the Earth. We will never be, nor are we created to be God in the same sense that He alone can be God.

 

[Allen1901]

Hello Allen,

There are those who get over into the ditch and believe that they are God. Give me a break! Are they Omnipotent? Omnipresent or Omniscient? What planets have they created? Are they the beginning and the end? and whose God are they? Not mine.

No matter how much we are created like God, we still remain the creation and He the Creator. What authority or power we have is derived solely from Him and His presence. Without Him we are nothing.

As far as status goes, we have the status of Sons of God, not the status of God. We have the status of "gods", not "God".

1 John 3:1 KJV
(1) Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:

When Jesus said "ye are gods" He meant nothing more than rulers or lords of the Earth. We will never be, nor are we created to be God in the same sense that He alone can be God.

Thank You for the clarification, Joey!

God Bless!

 

[PastorJoey]

Thank You for the clarification, Joey!

God Bless!

No problem, glad I could be a help. As for the question about whether or not Jesus spent three days in hell, there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus did "descend into the lower parts of the earth" (and not just the upper regions as some suggest).

 

[PastorJoey]

I think it's the "equal with God" part I'm having trouble with.
In my mind, there has to be some distinction between the state
of Adam as a pre-sin being, and a born again man after the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus, for our sins. By faith, we are greater than Adam, because Jesus was(is) greater than Adam.

God Bless!

Great post Allen...2 Cor. 5:17 says those who are in Christ are "new creations". A new creation is a new species of being having never before existed. this would suggest that the new creation is created on a higher order than Adam was created in the garden before the fall, otherwise we could not be called a new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17 AMP
(17) Therefore if any person is in Christ he is a new creation (a new creature altogether)...

 

[Allen1901]

Great post Allen...2 Cor. 5:17 says those who are in Christ are "new creations". A new creation is a new species of being having never before existed. this would suggest that the new creation is created on a higher order than Adam was created in the garden before the fall, otherwise we could not be called a new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17 AMP
(17) Therefore if any person is in Christ he is a new creation (a new creature altogether)...

Thank You Joey!

God Bless!

 

[John Shrewsbury]

When I first started getting into the Word of Faith a lot of people who are Christians tried to put me off. They said things like, "It's that prosperity gospel - all they care about is money!". Or they tried to make claims about men of God like Kenneth Copeland and accuse them of ripping people off.

But I knew there was something in this Word thing, and so I prayed and prayed over it, and God led me here.

Sadly, some people (including many Christians) are so tempered by the world that they spend very little time in the Word, and don't understand people who do study and live the Word.

 

[Supplanter]

When I first started getting into the Word of Faith a lot of people who are Christians tried to put me off. They said things like, "It's that prosperity gospel - all they care about is money!". Or they tried to make claims about men of God like Kenneth Copeland and accuse them of ripping people off.

But I knew there was something in this Word thing, and so I prayed and prayed over it, and God led me here.

Sadly, some people (including many Christians) are so tempered by the world that they spend very little time in the Word, and don't understand people who do study and live the Word.

Wow. Well, Amen to that!

 

[Allen1901]

When I first started getting into the Word of Faith a lot of people who are Christians tried to put me off. They said things like, "It's that prosperity gospel - all they care about is money!". Or they tried to make claims about men of God like Kenneth Copeland and accuse them of ripping people off.

But I knew there was something in this Word thing, and so I prayed and prayed over it, and God led me here.

Sadly, some people (including many Christians) are so tempered by the world that they spend very little time in the Word, and don't understand people who do study and live the Word.

God Bless You Faith In Him!

Welcome to CF!

 

[Allen1901]

Wow. Well, Amen to that!

Amen to that "Amen to that!" LOL!