Of Course I Believe in Prosperity, so do you

[Biblicist]

Dr. Gordon Fee and all respected ministry?

I don't personally have the nerve to speak for all of my church, let alone all of respected ministry!

As for Gordon fee with his honorary doctorate. I think he is 80% on track theologically and 20% of his theological cheese had slid off his cracker. He is. not respected by a great number of people in the Assemblies of God, let alone worldwide.

Just sayin'

When I saw your reference to Dr. Gordon Fee with “As for Gordon fee with his honorary doctorate.” I almost fell off my chair. Once I was able to regain my composure I did notice that the opening line of the Wikipedia link that you most likely quickly referred to that it did say the following:

Gordon Donald Fee (born 1934) is an American-Canadian Christian ... On April 21, 2010, Fee was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from ...
​

What you failed to include after ‘honorary doctorate’ was that it was a Doctorate of Divinity and I find it rather humorous that Fee was not only awarded this degree but that he even accepted it in the first place; the idea of giving an exegetical scholar such as Fee a Divinity accreditation – I reckon that’s hilarious. Generally, a Doctorate in Divinity is deemed to be similar to an Arts Degree in the secular world – dare I say anymore.

Anyway, Fee is a highly accredited scholar:

• PhD in New Testament studies from the University of Southern California
• Seattle Pacific University, B.A.
• Seattle Pacific University, M.A.

• He is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia
• He has taught at Wheaton College
• Southern California College
• and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

In the main portion of the Wikipedia entry it also made mention to how he has been deemed to be somewhat of a ‘problem child’ for the AoG but he is the sort of ‘problem child’ that every denomination should desire to have throughout its ranks; the AoG’s concern with Fee is in regard to the issue of separability and subsequence regarding the classic Pentecostal view of the Holy Spirit which I grant is certainly a sensitive issue for classic-Pentecostals.

I think he is 80% on track theologically and 20% of his theological cheese had slid off his cracker.

Is this a calculated and well thought out opinion or are you simply misunderstanding/misapplying the Wikipedia reference?

With regard to Fee I tend to state that I agree with him about 50% of the time but as he is one of the Churches’ leading exegetical scholars, even when we view him as being wrong on a given issue such as with his strong stance on egalitarianism, as his arguments are probably the best presented from within the academic field then his work is compulsory reading. What many people fail to appreciate is that someone can still be respected and valued for their opinions even when they’re wrong on an issue or two.

One very important aspect of Fee’s work is that he was one of a handful of academics who had helped to dismount cessationism from its once lofty height. There are many thousands of individuals who are now residing within the Full Gospel movement due to his brilliant work which in most part came about due to his monumental exegetical treatment of 1 Corinthians from a Pentecostal perspective. He is also recognised as being the first Pentecostal scholar, well, after Paul of course.

He is. not respected by a great number of people in the Assemblies of God, let alone worldwide.

If you were to have said that many within the AoG are concerned with some of his teachings then you would be correct; but to say that he is not ‘respected by a great many’ then you would be way of base and in my opinion if anyone were to not respect someone of his calibre then they probably either despise theology in general or that they’re simply hard-core cessationists.

If nothing else, your reply does show the need to carefully check our facts when we do a ‘quickie’ on the web for information. I must admit that your statement that Fee only has an honorary doctorate that this will put a smile on my face for weeks and after having had a great day of fellowship at church and after - I didn't think that my day could get any better. I know that I'm probably being a bit ungracious but your post was simply out of this world - maybe it appeals to my Australian sense of humour.


Edit: Fee is also strenuously anti-wof and his written profusely against the wof/prosperity movement in general which is probably something that the US AoG will be more than happy with.

 

[Biblicist]

Dr. Gordon Fee and all respected ministry?

I don't personally have the nerve to speak for all of my church, let alone all of respected ministry!

I forgot to add in that I have no problem doing this as they’re the ones that I spend my time on.

Of course I could never in a thousand years imagine that any credible academic would ever sanction the theological aberrations that come out of the celebrity wof circuit. If anyone has any such information then please post their names, who knows, I could be in for a surprise - well more like a shock!

 

[Simon Peter]

When I saw your reference to Dr. Gordon Fee with “As for Gordon fee with his honorary doctorate.” I almost fell off my chair. Once I was able to regain my composure I did notice that the opening line of the Wikipedia link that you most likely quickly referred to that it did say the following:

Gordon Donald Fee (born 1934) is an American-Canadian Christian ... On April 21, 2010, Fee was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from ...
​

What you failed to include after ‘honorary doctorate’ was that it was a Doctorate of Divinity and I find it rather humorous that Fee was not only awarded this degree but that he even accepted it in the first place; the idea of giving an exegetical scholar such as Fee a Divinity accreditation – I reckon that’s hilarious. Generally, a Doctorate in Divinity is deemed to be similar to an Arts Degree in the secular world – dare I say anymore.

Anyway, Fee is a highly accredited scholar:

• PhD in New Testament studies from the University of Southern California
• Seattle Pacific University, B.A.
• Seattle Pacific University, M.A.

• He is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia
• He has taught at Wheaton College
• Southern California College
• and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

In the main portion of the Wikipedia entry it also made mention to how he has been deemed to be somewhat of a ‘problem child’ for the AoG but he is the sort of ‘problem child’ that every denomination should desire to have throughout its ranks; the AoG’s concern with Fee is in regard to the issue of separability and subsequence regarding the classic Pentecostal view of the Holy Spirit which I grant is certainly a sensitive issue for classic-Pentecostals.

Is this a calculated and well thought out opinion or are you simply misunderstanding/misapplying the Wikipedia reference?

With regard to Fee I tend to state that I agree with him about 50% of the time but as he is one of the Churches’ leading exegetical scholars, even when we view him as being wrong on a given issue such as with his strong stance on egalitarianism, as his arguments are probably the best presented from within the academic field then his work is compulsory reading. What many people fail to appreciate is that someone can still be respected and valued for their opinions even when they’re wrong on an issue or two.

One very important aspect of Fee’s work is that he was one of a handful of academics who had helped to dismount cessationism from its once lofty height. There are many thousands of individuals who are now residing within the Full Gospel movement due to his brilliant work which in most part came about due to his monumental exegetical treatment of 1 Corinthians from a Pentecostal perspective. He is also recognised as being the first Pentecostal scholar, well, after Paul of course.

If you were to have said that many within the AoG are concerned with some of his teachings then you would be correct; but to say that he is not ‘respected by a great many’ then you would be way of base and in my opinion if anyone were to not respect someone of his calibre then they probably either despise theology in general or that they’re simply hard-core cessationists.

If nothing else, your reply does show the need to carefully check our facts when we do a ‘quickie’ on the web for information. I must admit that your statement that Fee only has an honorary doctorate that this will put a smile on my face for weeks and after having had a great day of fellowship at church and after - I didn't think that my day could get any better. I know that I'm probably being a bit ungracious but your post was simply out of this world - maybe it appeals to my Australian sense of humour.

Edit: Fee is also strenuously anti-wof and his written profusely against the wof/prosperity movement in general which is probably something that the US AoG will be more than happy with.

True.

I knew a man who was taught exegesis by Dr. Fee at university. And I have some of his books. An excellent professor as well as excellent theologian, regardless of how much you agree with him.


peace,
Simon

 

[Biblicist]

I knew a man who was taught exegesis by Dr. Fee at university. And I have some of his books. An excellent professor as well as excellent theologian, regardless of how much you agree with him.

One of the ‘challenges of challenging’ Fee is that he is not a theologian but a New Testament Exegetical scholar which means that he specialises in the Greek text of the NT. This means that he would have at his fingertips virtually every known piece of data regarding each and every NT word and with how each word was used from the early classical-Greek period through to the 4th century.

This makes the work of any theologian who wishes to disagree with him to be an incredible challenge as they have to be well-armed in their research which of course is a good thing and we all benefit from these various interactions. I suspect that some theologians would enjoy the experience of sparing with him over a given issue merely for the experience of doing so.

Even though he receives some well deserved flack over his egalitarian views, I find that when I disagree with Fee that he seems to be following traditional AoG views. At this stage I don’t have access to his latest journals as my university only provides limited access to the numerous theological journals but hopefully another avenue will open up in this area in a month or two; as such he may have changed some of his views but undoubtedly not with his egalitarian stance.

One of the problems that the AoG would have encountered is that even when Fee was wrong and they were right, they would have been only able to find a handful of academics in the AoG fold who would have been able to effectively counter his arguments, particularly when they were based on exegetical grounds.

 

[Simon Peter]

So you are comParing your views on what you perceive as WoF like the work of Martin Luther!

If I understand this correctly, yes I think there are similarities between the abuses of 16th century Catholic church leadership and 21st century WoF church leadership.

Both take from the poor to make themselves rich.
Both put far too much emphasis on 'giving' to the church in their sermons.
Both take money from poor lay people to build huge church projects, when they could have just spent their own money.
Both became a class of leadership aloof from lay people.
Both use threat and intimidation of God's wrath against those who would question or oppose them.


peace,
Simon

 

[dkbwarrior]

One of the ‘challenges of challenging’ Fee is that he is not a theologian but a New Testament Exegetical scholar which means that he specialises in the Greek text of the NT. This means that he would have at his fingertips virtually every known piece of data regarding each and every NT word and with how each word was used from the early classical-Greek period through to the 4th century.

This makes the work of any theologian who wishes to disagree with him to be an incredible challenge as they have to be well-armed in their research which of course is a good thing and we all benefit from these various interactions. I suspect that some theologians would enjoy the experience of sparing with him over a given issue merely for the experience of doing so.

Even though he receives some well deserved flack over his egalitarian views, I find that when I disagree with Fee that he seems to be following traditional AoG views. At this stage I don’t have access to his latest journals as my university only provides limited access to the numerous theological journals but hopefully another avenue will open up in this area in a month or two; as such he may have changed some of his views but undoubtedly not with his egalitarian stance.

One of the problems that the AoG would have encountered is that even when Fee was wrong and they were right, they would have been only able to find a handful of academics in the AoG fold who would have been able to effectively counter his arguments, particularly when they were based on exegetical grounds.

I am really not entirely anti-intellectual, however, IMHO, you put way to much reverence on ones education. While I respect Fee, (as I said before, I probably respect, or would respect if I knew them all, most of the same men in mainline Pentecostal theology that you do,) there is and historically always has been a major disconnect between Respected Biblical Scholars views and the experiential move of God that is happening congruently during the same time period.

One need only look at the beginning of the Pentecostal movement itself, to see this play out, where many of the same arguments that you are relying on now, were instead levelled at the Pentecostals, who were considered anti-intellectual and uneducated for the most part, by the prior move of God, the evangelical movement, that was just then coming into its own intellectually and theologically. It is interesting to note, that you yourself stated that Gordon Fee was possibly the first of his kind in Pentecostal circles, yet Azuza street happened in 1906. Was there no validity to the Pentecostal movement until the rise of Gordon Fee, or at least, until the rise of well educated theologically mature apologists? During that first generation of Pentecostals, they were constantly being scoffed at for their lack of refined Seminary Education, and Intellectual Imaturity, by those well established and well educated denominations and movements that came before them.

In hindsight, we can see that historically this has always been the case. By the time the intellectual elite from the second or third generation of a move of God finally attains the lofty status of intelletual consensual back patting for their mature theological views as had their predecessors from the previous move of God, the Spirit of God has moved on and is doing something new, again making the wisdom of man look like foolishness, which is then enevitably attacked by these self congratualatory intellectual giants that have attained to the lofty peaks of educational superiority themselves, yet no longer hear the voice of God.

The irony of this is not lost on me, as I desire greatly to apologise for the WOF movement, and to provide a coherent theological model for our movement. However, it does not escape me that in another generation from now, when I and others have finally accomplished this task, and our theologians have BA's, MA's, and PHD's, and we are able to well articulate our theological stands, congratulating each other for our intellectual superiority, that the Spirit of God may have well moved on by then, and left us simply patting ourselves on the back for our educational attainments, and in turn attacking the very thing which we originally were trying to defend, that is, the move of the Spirit of God that will then be taking place. And that is precisely how I see your arguments in this regard.

Peace...

 

[hislegacy]

I was an Assemblies of God minister for 6 years, I'm personally familiar with Mr. Fee. The issue is that the reality of the man is not as stellar as you think he is.

 

[Biblicist]

...there is and historically always has been a major disconnect between Respected Biblical Scholars views and the experiential move of God that is happening congruently during the same time period.

In fact quite the contrary is true!

Even though we could spend some time defining what we mean by a ‘move of God’, all we have to do is to take a look at the historical record with scholarly men beginning with Wycliffe. Even though he is primarily known for translating the first English Bible his theological attacks against the abuses of the Roman Catholic church made him a virtual house-hold name across the literate elements within both Western and Eastern Europe.

We can follow up with Jan Huss (c. 1400) who was the Master at Charles University in Prague who was murdered by the Roman See in Eastern Europe about a century after Wycliffe. Huss adopted the works of Wycliffe which caused a sensation in the Czech region where the Hussites fought off at least five successive papal armies. About a century later it is estimated that at least 90% of this region was non-Roman Catholic – not bad for a stuffy old theologian.

Then of course we have the unusual and temperamental Luther (c. 1520) and this scholar ended up changing the face of the known world - again, pretty impressive stuff for a professor of Theology.

Then we come to James Harmenson (c. 1580), or Jacob Harmenzoon who is more commonly known as Arminius who stopped the tides of Calvinism by returning large portions of the Church back to a Biblical framework that we now know as Arminianism – which the vast number of Pentecostals are today along with most of their Holiness forebears.

Then we have John Wesley (c. 1750) who as a Theologian changed the face of much of the Church where his ministry and teachings became the forerunner of the modern Pentecostal church.

When we arrive at the 20th century we encounter the birth of the Pentecostal movement in 1901 where it seems that very little if anything developed until 1906 at Azusa Street. Even after this event the fledgling Pentecostal churches went from disaster to disaster where the movement was wracked by controversy with their heretical Pentecostal oneness movement, what a great start for Pentecost.

The Pentecostal movement seemed to slowly grow in some regions of the world but it never seemed to really have any great impact and by the end of the 50’s and certainly by the start of the 60’s it had essentially become a powerless lame duck. With the onset of the Charismatic renewal the Full Gospel movement soon began to develop some teeth as mainline academics began to take a serious look into Full Gospel Theology where by the mid 90’s the many theologians who were either Full Gospel or open-but-cautious had removed cessationism from being a serious form of Theology.

Sadly with the onset of a number of aberrant developments within the Full Gospel movement much of the ground that was captured by these academics has admittedly been undermined by the incredible amount of worldliness that has been introduced by various ministries. The Full Gospel church is now probably as spiritually stale as was the Pentecostal movement of the early 60’s but hopefully the incredible gains that have been made over the past 20 years by these Theologians will be enough to see us return to a strong Biblical Pneumatic experience.

So from an historical point of view, very little seems to have occurred without the strong influence of Godly men who have stood square on the Word of God and if the early Pentecostal church had of emphasised a return to the Scriptures then we would have undoubtedly seen a strong Full Gospel tradition decades ago instead of the almost lifeless creature that preceded the Charismatic Renewal; if history is correct this mighty move of God was begun through the ministry of the Rev. Dennis Bennett who probably held an equivalent to a Masters Degree.

 

[Biblicist]

If I were to consider the top 20 academics who I tend to refer to, there will be times where I will be more than just a bit excited by their work on a given page but then I can turn over to the next page where some of their work may cause me to chuckle a bit. This is the reason that I rely on a wealth of resources by men who are experts in their respective field/s as I have learnt many years ago that material which is peer-reviewed by some of the most Godly men of our time helps us to avoid most (but not all) pitfalls.

It all comes down to who were refer to in our endeavour to understand the Word of God and why should I disparage the work of Godly men simply because they are intelligent particularly as many of these men are well able to display God-given leadership in the area of Biblical teaching.

If I need to understand a particular Greek word which may be important to understanding a given text, should I rely on the dated and often unreliable Vines dictionary (which I used to do years ago) or go to the works of some of the best contemporary minds in the field of linguistics where essentially they cover every base and contingency.

As for intelligence - well praise God that he has raised many fine men of God who are well able to exegete the Word of God!

And of course there are even many churchmen who in my view I would not consider to be Born Again who can still supply some superb work particularly in the important field of archaeology and linguistics and most certainly within the vitally important area of socio-rhetorical studies.

Come to think of it, I didn't even bother to ask my surgeon if he was a Christian as he was about to disassemble me and then reassemble me; all I was concerned with was that he held the necessary qualifications from an appropriate academic institution and accreditation authority - that's where we really find out just how strongly we appreciate and value academic qualifications!

 

[Biblicist]

I was an Assemblies of God minister for 6 years, I'm personally familiar with Mr. Fee. The issue is that the reality of the man is not as stellar as you think he is.

It seems that you may have missed the various parts of my earlier post where I very clearly stated that I sometimes struggle with some of his positions, particularly with his horrid stance on egalitarianism - which is in my view far from being 'stellar'.

May I politely offer the opinion that it would be prudent to answer my posts without necessarily implying that I hold to certain points of view with which I obviously do not...again, I do ask this politely.

 

[hislegacy]

My I also politely offer the opinion that you consider what you are saying and rephrase it in a less abrasive and condescending manner and tone. Your use of definitive statements and alluding to you knowing what the vast majority of Christians feel or think about Word of Faith does not do well for you.

It would be like me placing judgement on all Australians based off your attitudes and manners shown here.

 

[hislegacy]

Let me qualify the above from my POV.

I have had the privilege to be a Word of Faith minister for more than a quarter century. I've had the humbling honor to travel in a number of states, Central America, Mexico, Canada, severally countries in Europe.

I have ministered in Word of Faith, Church of God, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Methodist and even an Episcopalean church.

Rhema has Bible schools in

Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Columbia
Mexico
Costa Ric
Peru
Australia
Angola
Belgium
Germany
Ghana
Italy
Nigeria
Switzerland
Greece
Ireland
Kenya
Ukraine
Austria
Egypt
France
Kenya
Spain
Indonesia
Mayanmar
Russia
Singapore
India
Paupa New Guinea
Samoa
Thailand

Total there are more than 60,000 graduates in these countries plus the US.

WITH THE ECEPTION OF CF. I have heard 5 people speak out about what the Word of Faith is doing.

And that's just one WoF ministry

 

[SavedByGrace3]

On the rare occasion that I find someone who actually knows what WoF teaches, we usually have a good discussion and resolve that our differences occur at foundational levels that is much lower than WoF. These ones I respect.

 

[probinson]

On the rare occasion that I find someone who actually knows what WoF teaches, we usually have a good discussion and resolve that our differences occur at foundational levels that is much lower than WoF. These ones I respect.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens here.

 

[Biblicist]

Rhema has Bible schools in...

I was intrigued with your reference to there being an Australian Rhema Bible college as the last one that they had here in Australia folded under dire circumstances sometime about 20 years ago; maybe some other Australians on this forum who can remember the debacle that occurred could fill us in.

As the wof movement regularly exhibits disaster after disaster they can easily roll up into one big catastrophe which makes it hard to remember specific details; but I do recall that things were pretty bad at the Rhema Bible college at the time which was reported in a number of Christian magazines here in Australia.

When I went to see how established the Rhema network was here in Australia, I was only able to find about a dozen or so congregations. In Melbourne where I live which has a population of about 4 million I was aware of at least one not too far from me which for a number of years had a reputation of creating havoc amongst their ranks and they seemed to have been kept at arms distance by the Full Gospel churches in our area; well at least when their name was raised in conversation nothing good was said about them.

As things had gone quite for the last couple of years I simply presumed that they had finally shut their doors but to my surprise when I just checked to see if they were existence it seems that they are still kicking; I will have to do a drive-by to see if they have more than a dozen or so families in their Sunday meetings.

Total there are more than 60,000 graduates in these countries plus the US.

Graduates – graduates of what! Well I suppose that we could also refer to McDonalds trainees who complete their training as being graduates as well – at least they’re probably better trained than the Rhema attendees here in Australia – as for elsewhere who knows.

I went to the website of the only recognisable Rhema training centre here in Australia which is based probably in a room within a church in Brisbane.

Their website seems to indicate that their courses are not recognised here in Australia and of course no Bible College in this country worth their salt would dare associate themselves with a group whose main teaching text seems to be that of Kenneth Hagin. It seems that Rhema operates very similar to the numerous cults who also base their teachings around a single guru or two – in my strong opinion; this places Rhema at least here in Australia within the category of being cult-like and I would definitely place them in the same category as oneness Pentecostals.

If any church or college were to base a years part time study around the teachings of say Gordon Fee or for that matter with any other major Christian teacher I wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

WITH THE ECEPTION OF CF. I have heard 5 people speak out about what the Word of Faith is doing.

Well, I thought that Miadogs comment was about the most unusual that I had encountered on CF, now I have two and there both from within the same topic!

So you’ve been an accredited AoG minister for six years (maybe at local level?) and you have apparently not come across any criticism of wof distinctive theology – this really does beggar belief.

Have you been reading the countless books that have either specifically or incidentally addressed the issue; have you read the countless magazine articles that have been included within probably every Christian magazine that has been in existence over the past 40 years. How about web articles and online Christian magazines or have you been reading the newspapers and listening to the secular media let alone with the number of Christian TV and radio programmes that have also talked about the ongoing heresies within the wof movement. As you live in the USA, I would have thought that you would have regularly come across this type of information by merely turning on your local TV news channel.

Have you even sat next to a fellow employee or at a bus stop where people have been talking about the abuses of the wof movement; all too sadly many simply presume that these abuses are a component of mainstream Pentecostalism which irritates the heck out of me, we’ve got enough problems of our own let alone with contending with the continuing wackiness of the so many wof celebrities – essentially you can’t be serious, surely not!

It would be like me placing judgement on all Australians based off your attitudes and manners shown here.

Well my attitude toward the ongoing and increasingly insane activities of the vast majority of wof celebrities would definitely reflect the general feelings of the vast majority (maybe 90%) of Australian Christians and of course with probably the rest of the Australian population as well.

As for manner, I think that I have been pretty reasonable considering the lack of interest with the wof supporters regarding my initial very reasonable concerns regarding Miadogs’ outlandish comments – something that each and every wof supporter should have immediately distanced themselves from; and as this is something that you chaps failed to do and you only responded under continued pressure to do so, then you have simply shamed yourselves – and I hope that this is plain enough.

If some non-wof believer had of applied Miadogs statement to mainstream Pentecostal/Charismatic life I would have immediately pulled out all guns to make sure that such silliness did not continue - we've already got enough to be ashamed about let alone unnecessarily adding to our problems.

My I also politely offer the opinion that you consider what you are saying and rephrase it in a less abrasive and condescending manner and tone. Your use of definitive statements and alluding to you knowing what the vast majority of Christians feel or think about Word of Faith does not do well for you.

I well understand that for many that ‘definitive statements’ can be somewhat threatening particularly when their based on well researched information; which stands in vast contrast to your Fee episode where you amazingly failed to offer a retraction or admit that you made a technical blunder in your haste to counter my position – you didn’t even breath a word; if it had of been me and I had no intention of replying to a glaring error then I think that I would have at least turned my computer off an taken a hiatus for a week or two.

As for me supposedly misrepresenting the view of millions of believers, all that I can say, going by your OWN words is that you may be the only person who is walking on this planet who has not met more than five people who have been critical of the wof movement – I need to ask you, going by your own words, do you feel comfortable addressing an issue where you have admitted that you have no real knowledge in – and I think that this is a pretty fair question which needs to be addressed.

I can’t wait for a reply to this question and undoubtedly as brothers in Christ we will continue to have some friendly interesting and lively interactions on this point alone.

And to think, my opening post simply asked that the more experienced wof supporters to wisely advise the OP not to make such outlandish comments.

 

[MinJeremiah]

This is a good response. I was going to say basically the same thing. I didn't read Miahdog's statement as meaning that no one in WOF leadership ever does anything "unscriptural". I read it to mean that they are no more unscriptural than any other movement or denomination has been, or is, within the chrisitan community. Is WOF perfect? Far from it, as long as we are in these courruptible bodies. But WOF is where the move of God is happening today, regardless; that much is evident simply from the global statistics.

Peace....

What I was saying is that the Word of Faith leaders teachings in prosperity, particularly Creflo Dollar, is scriptural.

Of course everyone of us have made mistakes. People like Dollar and Copeland have also came back and corrected themselves publicly when they messed up.
My statement wasn't in regard to all teachings.

 

[Biblicist]

I owe an apology to Yahu as I inadvertently and carelessly used his name on two occasions instead of Miahdog - thankfully no one noticed my error but just to play it safe...

 

[probinson]

I well understand that for many that ‘definitive statements’ can be somewhat threatening particularly when their based on well researched information;

I'm sorry. Did you just say "well researched information"? You have offered absolutely nothing of substance. Just empty and disparaging ranting and raving.

Luckily I had just swallowed my drink, or I might have a mess on my screen right about now.

 

[hislegacy]

So you know how 90% of all Australians think. And how the vast majority of Christians globally think.

You raise Gordon Fee as an example of a respectable minister and then denegrate him on certain issues.

Who are you going to bring up next? Hank Hennegraf?

You will be waiting for a long time for a retraction of my comments on Fee. It is not an error on my part, but on yours.

Tell me, are these people you are ranting against Christians? Will the ones you consider aberrant And cancers be in heaven?

edit : your definitive statements are not threatening in any way shape or form, they are, IMHO, bordering ludacris because they are not backed by any reference or facts. There is no substance to them.

 

[Leimeng]

~ Why is it soo hard for 'Christians' to actually believe that Bible. Especially Christians who hold to plenary and verbal inspiration of Scriptures?
~ How come the anti-faith/anti-Word cult/crowd seems to look the perceived faults of man for validation of their viewpoints instead of looking the the Word of God?
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)