The New WoF Apologetics Thread

[Simon the Tanner]

I have been asked to start a new apologetics thread. I hesitated to do so, because somebody previously reported me and had a link removed because it supposedly violated the rules of the forum by opposing the beliefs of the crowd. I assure you that I'm not opposed to the WoF. I don't agree with everything I hear and see WoF ministers say and do, but I believe in the main aspects of WoF teaching.

Over the years I've heard a lot of people misrepresent what WoF teachers have said. Some critics have even lied in my opinion. That's why I wrote a book to set the record straight.

I have been slowly putting together a lot of material to help WoF people defend their positions when challenged by opponents and critics. I'll start with one point here.

WoF opponents insist that Isaiah 53:5 is referring to spiritual healing, not physical healing. They say it means that we will have healthy bodies in heaven, but we will be sick from time to time just like unbelievers as long as we live in this world.

When somebody tells me that, I will just direct them to Matthew 8:16,17.

"When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses.”

Matthew is quoting from Isaiah 53:4 here, the verse immediately preceding Isaiah 53:5. So according to Matthew, the context of Isaiah 53:4,5 is physical healing. Who are you gonna believe, a 21st century apologist or Matthew?

Some opponents will conced that Matthew tells us that the context is physical healing, but then they'll insist that it was fulfilled in Jesus' day and it doesn't apply to believers today. Let's explore that a bit.

Matthew 12:17-21 tells us

"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

18 “Behold! My Servant whom I have chosen,
My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased!
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He will declare justice to the Gentiles.
19 He will not quarrel nor cry out,
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
20 A bruised reed He will not break,
And smoking flax He will not quench,
Till He sends forth justice to victory;
21 And in His name Gentiles will trust.”

So if you're a Gentile, I assume you believe that this verse still applies to you. By the opponents' logic it was fulfilled in Jesus' day and it doesn't apply to us today, but clearly Gentiles are still trusting in Jesus. Even the opponents (most of whom are Gentiles) will acknowledge that. So if this passage still applies then fairness and consistency would dictate that Matthew 8:17 still applies. You can't have it both ways.

Physical healing is provided for us in the atonement, and it is appropriated by faith. This is even stated in the Assembly of God statement of faith. If you call it heresy then you are calling millions of people in the AG denomination heretics, along with A. B. Simpson (Christian & Missionary Alliance founder) and the highly regarded devotional writer Andrew Murray. In fact the true roots of the WoF Movement can be found in the Faith Cure Movement which influenced Simpson, Murray, and millions of others who paved the way for the Pentecostal Movement in the early 20th century Something to think about.

 

[hhodgson]

I have been asked to start a new apologetics thread. I hesitated to do so, because somebody previously reported me and had a link removed because it supposedly violated the rules of the forum by opposing the beliefs of the crowd. I assure you that I'm not opposed to the WoF. I don't agree with everything I hear and see WoF ministers say and do, but I believe in the main aspects of WoF teaching.

Over the years I've heard a lot of people misrepresent what WoF teachers have said. Some critics have even lied in my opinion. That's why I wrote a book to set the record straight.

I have been slowly putting together a lot of material to help WoF people defend their positions when challenged by opponents and critics.

Hey! Thanks Simon. And just when the (critics) are saying, and have said, that... Word of Faith is dead... God sends someone to us to discuss, share and teach Word-of-Faith apologetics to us. I personally welcome the timing of this. As far as Word-of-Faith being dead, God is saying, "not so fast" for we haven't seen nothing yet.

Our part in the Body of Christ is far from dead but "regrouping" and praising God all the way as we complete the work He has for us to do. I like what one (non-WoF) poster commented, when he heard a critic say that Word-of-Faith has "fled for good" and the movement is finally dead and gone. He quoted... "And yet (WoF) just keeps chugging along." (name withheld)

Let's see where God leads us with your teaching...

Roots of the WoF Movement can be found in the Faith Cure Movement which influenced Simpson, Murray, and millions of others who paved the way for the Pentecostal Movement in the early 20th century. Something to think about.

We had a very good "roots" study sometime back you may find interesting...
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...g-who-founded-wof-in-all-expressions.7857702/

​

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There is no such thing as "spiritual healing" or "healing of the spirit."
The spirit of unregenerate man is dead. Not just sick. It cannot be healed:

Jeremiah 17:9
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

One scholar translates the word "desperately" as "incurable" as it is in Mic 1:9 = "For her wound is incurable..."

We need to be born again, not just healed.

Ephesians says it just that way. We were not healed, we were raised up from spiritual death:

Ephesians 2:1-10
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

You are correct. The passages from Is 53 and 1 Peter 2 both refer to being physically healed.
Blessings
Dids

 

[Simon the Tanner]

Thanks guys. Here's another one.

The Bible says that Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. (Mat: 9:35) So the gospel that He preached included physical healing. Now, while many would just attribute that to Jesus the fact is it also happened in the book of Acts. Paul was preaching the gospel in Lystra in Acts 14, and a man who had never walked heard him. Paul saw that the man had faith to be healed and he told him to stand up. He did so and was healed.

Now, where does faith come from? Romans 10:17 says that it comes from hearing the Word of God. So something in the gospel that Paul preached caused this man to have faith, not only for salvation, but for PHYSICAL HEALING! WoF opponents are quick to point out that Paul warned the church in Galatia that if anybody preaches a different gospel from the one that he preached to them, they are accursed. (Gal. 1:8) They say that the WoF is a different gospel, and therefore we should reject it. But let me ask you this. Where was Lystra? Why, it was in Galatia wasn't it? So the gospel that he preached to them included physical healing. Well, the gospel that many people preach today doesn't include physical healing, so it seems to me that if anybody is preaching a different gospel from the one that Paul preached in Galatia, it's those who preach a gospel that doesn't include healing because Paul's gospel did.

Now I don't propose that we condemn everybody who doesn't believe in divine healing, because if you examine what Paul was referring to the context was the Judaizers and circumcision. What I am saying though, is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and people who aren't preaching a gospel that gets people healed shouldn't be accusing others of preaching a different gospel from the one in the Bible because that gospel brought physical healing.

 

[now faith]

Thanks guys. Here's another one.

The Bible says that Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. (Mat: 9:35) So the gospel that He preached included physical healing. Now, while many would just attribute that to Jesus the fact is it also happened in the book of Acts. Paul was preaching the gospel in Lystra in Acts 14, and a man who had never walked heard him. Paul saw that the man had faith to be healed and he told him to stand up. He did so and was healed.

Now, where does faith come from? Romans 10:17 says that it comes from hearing the Word of God. So something in the gospel that Paul preached caused this man to have faith, not only for salvation, but for PHYSICAL HEALING! WoF opponents are quick to point out that Paul warned the church in Galatia that if anybody preaches a different gospel from the one that he preached to them, they are accursed. (Gal. 1:8) They say that the WoF is a different gospel, and therefore we should reject it. But let me ask you this. Where was Lystra? Why, it was in Galatia wasn't it? So the gospel that he preached to them included physical healing. Well, the gospel that many people preach today doesn't include physical healing, so it seems to me that if anybody is preaching a different gospel from the one that Paul preached in Galatia, it's those who preach a gospel that doesn't include healing because Paul's gospel did.

Now I don't propose that we condemn everybody who doesn't believe in divine healing, because if you examine what Paul was referring to the context was the Judaizers and circumcision. What I am saying though, is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and people who aren't preaching a gospel that gets people healed shouldn't be accusing others of preaching a different gospel from the one in the Bible because that gospel brought physical healing.

As Far as Faith for healing it is a promise for sinner and Christian alike.

Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Whosoever in John is the same Whosoever in Mark.
Dad Hagin taught this message time and time again.
Faith for salvation is the same faith for healing or faith for anything else

The James passage is unconditional even if the sick has sinned!
So that throws out the idea God put sickness on people to punish them.

If you have committed sins and they are forgiven, we must conclude a sinner unrepentant would go before the elders and be healed, and their sins forgiven.

Personally I do not understand how these and other verses can be changed by adding some conditions of theology on to them.
When this happens you are trusting a man's view rather than the direct statements made in the Bible.

 

[hhodgson]

Now I don't propose that we condemn everybody who doesn't believe in divine healing, because if you examine what Paul was referring to the context was the Judaizers and circumcision. What I am saying though, is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and people who aren't preaching a gospel that gets people healed shouldn't be accusing others of preaching a different gospel from the one in the Bible because that gospel brought physical healing.

And... "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Romans 14:23. And... "For by grace you are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8. So those who don't preach the gospel of healing as part of the atonement are denying His Grace... and they wonder why they don't receive their healing?

The difference of "spiritual" healing and "physical" healing as explained by (Got Questions?org) is that Isaiah 53:5, which is then quoted in 1 Peter 2:24, is a key verse on healing, but (as they wrongly say) "it is often misunderstood and misapplied and the contexts of those scriptures make it clear that it is speaking of spiritual healing." To Word-of-Faith, this is total nonsense.

We believe that these healings were physical and that our old man (spirit) died and was crucified with Christ and considered dead and was given a new spirit (not a healed one) and a (new heart) when we were born-again. This popular website also says that pertaining to physical healing... "sometimes it is God's will to heal, but sometimes it is not." WoF believes it is always God's will to heal to "whosoever may come" and... to NOT believe that... would cheapen God's Grace by the finished works of Jesus Christ.

So who's preaching "another gospel?"

​

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Many of these deny that healing is included in the atonement. Truth is, everything is included in the atonement. What do people think that God has given us is not included in the atonement? Are they suggesting that in any such area, we do not need Christ?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

After studying Christianity and WoF for over 44 years, I feel this is the most basic difference between WoF and "orthodox" Christianity. We truly are different from the rest of Christianity in the following regard:

In WoF doctrine, Christ, the gospel, and the Word are the foundation of doctrinal truth. All truth is interpreted in the lens that is Christ, the gospel, and the Word.

In "orthodox" Christianity, sovereignty, the general attributes of God, and control are the foundation of doctrinal truth. All truth, including what Jesus said, the gospel, and the word are interpreted through the lens of sovereignty, the general attributes of God, and control.

A good example of how this works can be seen in the topic of prayer. Jesus said if the word abides in you you will ask what you will and it will be done unto you. Hence what Jesus said is the absolute truth and needs no qualification. However, "orthodox" Christianity holds that everything in the word, including what Jesus said, must be interpreted in view of the theological terms of sovereignty, the general attributes of God, and control. So when "orthodoxy" reads: "ask what you will and it will be done unto you" they will qualify the words of Jesus with the phase "if it be Gods will." In other words, "orthodox" Christianity does not consider the words of Jesus to be the unqualified will of God. They must qualify and interpret what Jesus said within the context of their orthodox theology.
In 90% of all my discussions with non-wofers, this is the root difference.

 

[Simon the Tanner]

I think the orthodox crowd somehow makes a distinction between the Word of God and the person of God. In Dan McConnell's book A Different Gospel he actually stated that the word of God is subject to the will of God, and the confession of the word only has power if the sovereign God wills to empower it. But John 1:1 tells us that God and His Word are one. Therefore if the person of God is sovereign, then the Word of God is sovereign. There's no authority beyond it.

Hank Hanegraaff stated that the sovereignty of God is the overarching principle of the Bible. He doesn't offer any prooftext for that, however. I believe that the overarching principle is faith, not sovereignty. Sovereignty is a given, but it doesn't determine who gets saved and who doesn't (unless you're a Calvinist). Faith does. Sovereignty doesn't determine who gets healed and who doesn't. Faith does. Jesus never told anybody that they were healed because God was in a good mood and in His sovereignty chose to heal them. But He did say "thy faith hath made thee whole".

This kind of talk prompts anti-WoF people to say that we don't believe in the sovereignty of God, which is nonsense. We just define it differently because we don't make any distinction between the Word of God, the character of God, the person of God, and the will of God.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It is amazing that so much emphasis is placed on two words that are not even found in the KJV of the Bible.
"Sovereignty" and "Control."
Not once.

 

[Simon the Tanner]

If you follow the "God is sovereign" reasoning to its logical conclusion you'll end up at one of two destinations. Predestination teaches that some are pre-ordained for salvation and others are pre-ordained for damnation, therefore if a person goes to hell it must be due to the sovereignty of God. Otherwise you'd have to remove His sovereignty from the equation and make the faith and the will of the individual in question the determining factors. On the other hand Universalism teaches the ultimate reconciliation of all. It goes something like this. Since God is sovereign, and since He isn't willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, in the end He will see to it that all come to Him and share in His eternal kingdom. Nobody can resist His grace.

Both lines of thinking are obviously flawed, because even though God is sovereign, and even though He doesn't want anybody to perish, He will not take away from anybody their free will. That's why the bible talks about the will of the individual. Do a quick rundown on the words "whoso" and "whosoever" in your concordance and you'll see that God values and honors our free will.

 

[now faith]

If you follow the "God is sovereign" reasoning to its logical conclusion you'll end up at one of two destinations. Predestination teaches that some are pre-ordained for salvation and others are pre-ordained for damnation, therefore if a person goes to hell it must be due to the sovereignty of God. Otherwise you'd have to remove His sovereignty from the equation and make the faith and the will of the individual in question the determining factors. On the other hand Universalism teaches the ultimate reconciliation of all. It goes something like this. Since God is sovereign, and since He isn't willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, in the end He will see to it that all come to Him and share in His eternal kingdom. Nobody can resist His grace.

Both lines of thinking are obviously flawed, because even though God is sovereign, and even though He doesn't want anybody to perish, He will not take away from anybody their free will. That's why the bible talks about the will of the individual. Do a quick rundown on the words "whoso" and "whosoever" in your concordance and you'll see that God values and honors our free will.

There seems to be a scapegoat of sorts,by using the excuse of rightly dividing the Word.
This cop out is across demonational lines from Orthodox to Charismatic.
When we have clear undeniable statements by Christ, what is there to rightly divide?

Personally I have grown to hate debating,right or wrong I owe some apologies my self.

I would like to publicly apologize to didaskslos for some unkind statements I posted in the past.
I know this is not what apologetics is about but I feel the need.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There seems to be a scapegoat of sorts,by using the excuse of rightly dividing the Word.
This cop out is across demonational lines from Orthodox to Charismatic.
When we have clear undeniable statements by Christ, what is there to rightly divide?

Personally I have grown to hate debating,right or wrong I owe some apologies my self.

I would like to publicly apologize to didaskslos for some unkind statements I posted in the past.
I know this is not what apologetics is about but I feel the need.

We're good old friend... I too repent of any harsh things that I sent your way.
Let's forgive and forget the whole matter and thank the Lord together!

 

[DMW]

I've quit debating too. Not that I was good at it. But i still value apologetics because there is value in defining and understanding what we believe in light of challenges that come from other groups. Over time, I've come to see that for the most part, we are just convincing ourselves. No one ever seems to get persuaded to change their thinking and no one ever admits they are wrong. But it is good to research and meditate the Word and become assured about what and why we believe the things we do.
There seems to be a huge trend right now toward calvinism/reformed theology, which to me is just a Christianized form of Islam. There are church plantings all over my area that look like nice modern youthful churches. They resemble a charismatic church in appearance and worship style. They call themselves non-denominational. But if you dig far enough on their web sites or listen to their messages, they are reformed.
I feel sorry for people who see Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen or the Copelands on TV, get some real hope for their situation, then show up at one of these places that look so friendly and charismatic, only to have their hopes dashed by a bunch of dead-end teaching. All that sovereignty teaching is just like submission, the message Islam.

 

[hhodgson]

I've quit debating too. Not that I was good at it. But i still value apologetics because there is value in defining and understanding what we believe in light of challenges that come from other groups. Over time, I've come to see that for the most part, we are just convincing ourselves. No one ever seems to get persuaded to change their thinking and no one ever admits they are wrong. But it is good to research and meditate the Word and become assured about what and why we believe the things we do.

There seems to be a huge trend right now toward calvinism/reformed theology, which to me is just a Christianized form of Islam. There are church plantings all over my area that look like nice modern youthful churches. They resemble a charismatic church in appearance and worship style. They call themselves non-denominational. But if you dig far enough on their web sites or listen to their messages, they are reformed.
I feel sorry for people who see Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen or the Copelands on TV, get some real hope for their situation, then show up at one of these places that look so friendly and charismatic, only to have their hopes dashed by a bunch of dead-end teaching. All that sovereignty teaching is just like submission, the message Islam.

I especially like the bold part DMW. I may not be persuaded either to change my thinking on some things but I will "help" keep our threads in "discussion" mode whether I disagree or agree... and if I don't agree, then I will at those times agree to disagree. And...!
(never was good in English).

I saved the following definitions for a good time to post them. I think now is as appropriate as a good time as any...

Debate vs Discussions

Debating -

Usually are marked by an adversarial approach where each party comes equipped to promote their position and to undermine that of the other side. Indeed, debates are marked by ‘sides’ – in much the same way as we often depict negotiations – and are not designed to generate added-value outcomes.

Discussions -

In a discussion, the parties hold points of view, but are potentially open to learning from alternative perspectives that may result in an improved position or solution. There are no winners and losers in a discussion. The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.​

Hmm..! Gotta go, Buckeyes are playing.

​

 

[now faith]

We're good old friend... I too repent of any harsh things that I sent your way.
Let's forgive and forget the whole matter and thank the Lord together!

Amen

 

[Simon the Tanner]

Apologetics isn't about debating. I never really debate, but when somebody says something that isn't true and I can prove it, I do so. When I'm challenged on my beliefs I feel the need to respond, and that requires preparation. Mostly apologetics is about providing others the necessary tools to communicate effectively why they believe what they believe, with gentleness and respect.

 

[hhodgson]

Apologetics isn't about debating. I never really debate, but when somebody says something that isn't true and I can prove it, I do so. When I'm challenged on my beliefs I feel the need to respond, and that requires preparation. Mostly apologetics is about providing others the necessary tools to communicate effectively why they believe what they believe, with gentleness and respect.

... and as you continue teaching on Word-of-Faith apologetics with gentleness and respect, (even with any challenges), then we also will be gentle and respectful in return and will "stand down" from any foolishness. We promise... to keep our alligators leashed up. How's that?

Just reviewed your recent video teachings... (10) already...! And they were all very good. I hope you don't mind but I brought them up here for all to review.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7d_jPXSFkeYUV2BFnkMsMA

Thanks Simon...

​

 

[Simon the Tanner]

Thanks, hh. I've got more videos in the works. There was nothing on YouTube defending WoF, so I decided to do something about that. I'll update the forum as I add more.

 

[Simon the Tanner]

Okay, here's one on Joyce Meyer. Regardless of what you think of her ministry, it's wrong to lie and misrepresent her. One apologetics site says that she teaches that you can't go to heaven unless you believe that Jesus went to hell. They "proved" that she said that by taking two statements that she made and running them together, omitting a paragraph in between. There was also a story about her owning at $23,000 toilet. In fact it was a chest of drawers, aka a "commode". Here's the video.