Quote from Hank Hanegraaff - Let's Discuss

[JimB]

I don’t agree with Hank Hanegraaf on a lot of things. being Calvary Chapel himself he has a wide streak of bias and bitterness toward my fellowship (the Vineyard) because the V is a split off CC (c.1980) that has been more successful and influential than his group. So, he is quick to point out our warts and has extended his diatribes to any group outside his own—including P/C’s and WOF’ers.

But I do not reject every criticism Hammerin’ Hank makes. The Vineyard is not perfect—and neither is WOF … nor Calvary Chapel, for that matter, although the Hankster is reluctant to turn the spotlight on his own group (sect) or to dig through their garbage. ​

Our immediate reaction to criticism, either of ourselves or our group, tends to send us into self-defense mode and we start rejecting every criticism that is made and justifying every flaw that is pointed out of us. And, in the process, we may miss the correction God is sending to us. Sometimes, when judgment does not begin at the house of God, He uses Philistines to bring correction to us.

So, maybe WOF needs to listen instead of going into immediate defensive posture. Seeing yourself through others’ eyes is not always a bad thing.​

~Jim

It is your disposition, not your position that makes you happy (or unhappy).​

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

There is no perfect church here on earth. Every one has its faults. Saying Vineyard or Calvary Chapel is more successful than the other, I would ask where one gets there information. Both are doing great things and both are seeing people saved. That is the important thing. I do agree, though, that we need to listen to criticism instead of immediately going into defensive mode.

 

[JimB]

There is no perfect church here on earth. Every one has its faults. Saying Vineyard or Calvary Chapel is more successful than the other, I would ask where one gets there information. Both are doing great things and both are seeing people saved. That is the important thing. I do agree, though, that we need to listen to criticism instead of immediately going into defensive mode.

Good point, JAS, and I should not have made a comparison. Only in the worldly sense that the V has more congregations than CC is it “more successful”. Each is doing their work in the their own niche in the kingdom and as they do it both are equally successful in the eyes of God.

But, that unfair comparison aside, we still learn from our critics if we do not lapse into defensive posture every time they point out a flaw. It just might really be a flaw.

~Jim

It is your disposition, not your position that makes you happy (or unhappy).​

 

[Simon_Templar]

Just browsing through my precious copy of Christianity in Crisis and decided I'd like to discuss this statement he (or one of his ghost writers/researchers) wrote:

I want to stress that sincere and dedicated believers can differ in good conscience when it comes to peripheral issues. They cannot do so, however, when it comes to the primary doctrines that separate Christianity from the kingdom of the cults. When it comes to such matters as the fabric of faith, the nature of God, and the atonement of Christ, there must be unity. As Saint Augustine so aptly put it: "In essentials, unity, in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."​

For the most part, charismatics and noncharismatics are unified when it comes to the essentials of the historic Christian faith. Their primary differences involve nonessential Christian doctrine. Therefore while we my vigorously debate secondary matters within the faith, we must never divide over them.​

Not so, however, when it comes to the Faith Movement, there we must draw the line. The Faith Movement has systematically subverted the very essence of Christianity so as to present us with a counterfeit Christ and a counterfeit Christianity. Therefore, standing against the theology of the faith movement does not divide; rather, it unites believers. (pp. 47, 48)​

Now I know that most, if not all of you anti-wofers have read this book. This book may have even helped to fuel your antagonism towards the movement. Here are some questions that I want to discuss:

1. Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one

)

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims? Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

Let's discuss.

1. No, I don't believe that most WoFers reject the essentials of Christianity. WoF has a number of doctrinal positions which are stated in such a way that at first blush they sound heretical and cultic. When I was first introduced to some of these ideas I did consider them to be heretical. However, In MOST of the cases I've seen the doctrines are not as bad as they are presented and much of the issue is people like Mr. Hanegraaff are more interested in finding fault (because that is what they have made their job and their business) than with understanding the positions that they are decrying.
Having said that, WoF would be better off if they reformed the wording of some of their doctrinal teachings because as they are they create confusion and are unnecessary fuel for debates such as this.

2. No, most WoF people that I have encountered don't belong in the kingdom of the cults. However, there are deffinetly elements of the WoF movement in its "popular culture" form that have cultic elements.


3. Augustine did not introduce infant baptism, or celibate priesthood. Both were well established and common practice in the church before Augustine's time. He argued for their establishment as official practice due to the fact that there was disagreement over them and he felt that the church should rule once and for all on those issues. Celibate priesthood in particular was not established as a doctrinal stand but as an element of 'discipline' specific to the Latin Rite Church. Catholic churches other than Latin rite are not required to have celibate priests.

4. it depends on what you mean by non-charismatic. There are many people who are generaly considered "non-charismatic" who do not specifically deny the gifts of the Spirit. Most of the traditional churches are usually considered non-charismatic because they don't actively teach, or encourage the gifts, but they have no doctrinal position against it, and they technically allow for charismatic doctrine.
If by non-charismatic you mean "cessationist" those who believe that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, then there is a fundamental disagreement over the Spirit and his work in the church. While this is not enough to qualify as a split, or to prevent me from unity with a cessationist believer, it is often enough to prevent them from unity with us.

5. I doubt that WoF has done the damage that Hanegraaff believes. There are many cases where elements of it have hurt people but the same could be said of almost any other section of the church. Over all I think there are some problems with WoF in general that lead people to wrong focuses and impead proper knowledge of God, but in the end the results are no worse than what I've seen in many other groups including cessationist groups like what mr. Hanegraaff, I assume, would belong to.

6. First, the "...in all things charity" is not an injunction to tolerate false teaching and heresy. Yes we should exercise charity with WoF even if we disagree with them. However, if they were actually a heretical cultic sect then we would be justified in tossing them out of the church and even handing them over to Satan for torment as Paul did. In our day, and in the WoF movement it is unimaginable, but the fact is that subjecting someone to persecution can be an act of charity if it is the only way to force them to reconsider their sin and rebellion.

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

One thing I would like to mention, in case it wasn't mentioned previously.

HH would be Charismatic, not cessasionist. HH just strongly disagrees with the WoF teaching of how the Spiritual Gifts are in use, some of the actions he has witnessed in WoF churches, and some of the statements made by WoF leaders. That doesn't mean he isn't Charismatic.

This post isn't saying whether he is right or wrong in what he says. That has been well enough discussed up to this point.

 

[geetrue]

Hank is so negative on just about everything I love or have grown fond of. I often wonder what does he love, what does he favor?

It would have to be Calvary Chapel type of people I suppose. I love them all ... I started at Horizon Christian Fellowship in San Diego ... Which was a Mike MacIntosh church and a student of Chuck Smith.

They have been so instrumental in evangelism and worship music that I would never be able to turn against them. They are in the body of Christ, but what do you do about Hank Hanegraff being so negative on anything that is not of his likeing?

I can't go along with Hank being right and wrong. I just refuse to listen to a little dark cloud coming over my radio.

 

[LogonLalein]

LOLOLOL!!!!
When I see absurd statements like this, I assume the one making them is either totally ignorant regarding anything WoF teaches, or is intentionally lying.

I will assume the best and just say he is ignorant.

The way it views faith is very very similar to the New Age view of "We are Gods-Universal Magnetism attracts happy things to us if we speak happy thoughts."
By in large, in as much as borrows from New Age principles in view of faith, yes.
Destroying faith through hyper-emotional healings that turn out to be false, ship-whrecking lives by saying to go off meds. Hyped up healings, that as you delve deeper, you discover are less... and less true, until, looking back, you realize they were lies.

It is not really worth answering. Having been in and around WoF for twice as long as the poster has been alive... I can tell you it is a pure fabrication.

 

[Atlantians]

LOLOLOL!!!!
When I see absurd statements like this, I assume the one making them is either totally ignorant regarding anything WoF teaches, or is intentionally lying.

I will assume the best and just say he is ignorant.

It is not really worth answering. Having been in and around WoF for twice as long as the poster has been alive... I can tell you it is a pure fabrication.

Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

To put it another way, am I ignorant for voicing my oppinion and saying why I believe it, or are you, for calling another ignorant without validated reasoning or evidence?

Your post simply could be cut and pasted to any issue, any topic, and any person.

Just remove WoF and replace it with the subject matter.

Evolution:

LOLOLOL!!!!
When I see absurd statements like this, I assume the one making them is either totally ignorant regarding anything Evolution teaches, or is intentionally lying.

I will assume the best and just say he is ignorant.

Evolution is wrong.

It is not really worth answering. Having been in and around Science for twice as long as the poster has been alive... I can tell you it is a pure fabrication.

Truth

LOLOLOL!!!!
When I see absurd statements like this, I assume the one making them is either totally ignorant regarding anything nature teaches, or is intentionally lying.

I will assume the best and just say he is ignorant.

Truth Exists!

It is not really worth answering. Having been in and around nature for twice as long as the poster has been alive... I can tell you it is a pure fabrication.

Islam:

LOLOLOL!!!!
When I see absurd statements like this, I assume the one making them is either totally ignorant regarding anything Islam teaches, or is intentionally lying.

I will assume the best and just say he is ignorant.

Islam teaches Jesus is not God.

It is not really worth answering. Having been in and around Islam for twice as long as the poster has been alive... I can tell you it is a pure fabrication.

The point of this is this:

If what I said was in any way ignorant, explain to me, then, how it is ignorant.
Ignorance is a foul stigma that if applied, is difficult to shake of, one can, if no adequete response is given, defeat an opponent with no evidence at all being shown in the favour of the point the one calling the other ignorant holds.

Being born and going to a WoF church, after many years at a Charismatic Church with some WoF strains, I have seen that kind of view of faith for a long time.

The idea that faith is a power, rather then trust.

That is New Ageism.

The phrases and terms used are so similar.

When I heard New Age teaching from books like the Secret, or movies that portray similar thoughts, I saw parrallels.

Now if these parrallells are untrue and simply surface similarities, please show me the grace of your doubly-aged wisdom and reveal to me what the truth of the matter is.

Hank is so negative on just about everything I love or have grown fond of. I often wonder what does he love, what does he favor?

He can be negetive, but he also provides great wisdom and encouragement in many ways.

It would have to be Calvary Chapel type of people I suppose. I love them all ... I started at Horizon Christian Fellowship in San Diego ... Which was a Mike MacIntosh church and a student of Chuck Smith.

They have been so instrumental in evangelism and worship music that I would never be able to turn against them. They are in the body of Christ, but what do you do about Hank Hanegraff being so negative on anything that is not of his likeing?

Hank is Calvary Chapel?
Did not know that.

I can't go along with Hank being right and wrong. I just refuse to listen to a little dark cloud coming over my radio.

Then how do you know he is so negetive?




I think what Hank's Greatest achievement on this whole issue is this: poking us in our tender spots to allow us to see where our doctrine is sore, and if that soreness is actually just evidence of an injury somewhere else, then that helps us heal that problem.

Hank is good with the Core, he helps soldify understand, and wisdom regarding what we believe, why we believe it, and who we are willing to believe.

He has rough spots, he attacks sometimes too coursely, yet the good, in my oppinion, has helped to do more good in the Church than the courseness may cut and scratch.

 

[sonofkorah]

The best thing that has ever happened to the WOF was the publication of "Christianity in Crisis".

Your leaders were floundering in ignorant self-absorbtion and ignorance.

The thing God Himself had started was being beat the crap out of by boneheaded leaders.

God ordained HH to do exactly what he did at exactly the right time.

If you don't understand that, then you are nothing but another religious twerp just like Hank. Exactly the same.

 

[Atlantians]

The best thing that has ever happened to the WOF was the publication of "Christianity in Crisis".

Your leaders were floundering in ignorant self-absorbtion and ignorance.

The thing God Himself had started was being beat the crap out of by boneheaded leaders.

God ordained HH to do exactly what he did at exactly the right time.

If you don't understand that, then you are nothing but another religious twerp just like Hank. Exactly the same.

A tad rough, and course, but point well made.

Bah... just had another Rod Parsley flash back:

He durring one of his funraising sermons, litterally, made an altar of miney, letters and donations, and prayed over this altar that all who sent money would get more money.

I don't care, really, what any of you say about leaders like THE Crouches and Parsley, Hinn, and the rest.

I don't need or require Hank or his books to shape or inspire my views of them.

I took your words for it, and the words of those at my old Church.

I tesxted Hank, I found him right.

Every single time I tune into TBN, or a "Praise A Thon"
I heard for myself in all context what they said.

Horrible interpretations saying: "Send money money money, and get way way more."
Over and over and over.

Parsley is just the most insidious example.

This was with my own eyes and ears,
my own heart testing these things and with scripture in hand to test even my heart.

I found them false.
Regardless of the good they have done, regardless of any good works.
They manipulate people into sending money.

God doesn't care so much about what good we do, but what we are.

And even if they we prophesy in His name, and in His name cast out demons, and in His name perform many miracles, that does not make them men and women of God.

What is so very interesting is that they all afirm their ministries by saying exactly these things Word for Word:
We prophesy in His name, and in His name cast out demons, and in His name perform many miracles!

What is even more interesting is that those who defend them, poing to these things and say:
They prophesy in His name, and in His name cast out demons, and in His name perform many miracles!

Yet then they have Parsley, and others doing these things?

To all WoFers
If WoF is not these leaders, and that WoF is not what these people teach, say so.

 

[sonofkorah]

A tad rough, and course, but point well made.

Yes, enduring reading all that junk made me a bit testy. Sorry.

I'm a bit older than you, and so probably longer in the faith, but I see what HH did as a very good thing. There was some major boys that had a clear revelation of God's word that from that point backed up and opened their bibles once again.

I'm sorry, but CIC was a very good work ordained by God for a particular purpose which it served well.

The understanding of Faith is greater because of it.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Atlantians]

Indeed.

All I know mainly of Hank is how well he effected me for the good.

Nothing can remove that.
God used Him mightily in my life.

I likely would not even believe the truth if God did not use Hank to solidify me with the orthodox core.

Yet at the same time God tempered by synicism by putting me in a milky Charismatic Church with strains of WoF!

Now God is moving me from what was not my nature as a Believer to an amazingly diverse Presbyterian Church.

I can see where God has used these things in my life to temper me so as not to hate other believers in any error they may have.

 

[sonofkorah]

Indeed.

All I know mainly of Hank is how well he effected me for the good.

Nothing can remove that.
God used Him mightily in my life.

I likely would not even believe the truth if God did not use Hank to solidify me with the orthodox core.

Yet at the same time God tempered by synicism by putting me in a milky Charismatic Church with strains of WoF!

Now God is moving me from what was not my nature as a Believer to an amazingly diverse Presbyterian Church.

I can see where God has used these things in my life to temper me so as not to hate other believers in any error they may have.

Then I pray, not for any error you may have either.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Just browsing through my precious copy of Christianity in Crisis and decided I'd like to discuss this statement he (or one of his ghost writers/researchers) wrote:

I want to stress that sincere and dedicated believers can differ in good conscience when it comes to peripheral issues. They cannot do so, however, when it comes to the primary doctrines that separate Christianity from the kingdom of the cults. When it comes to such matters as the fabric of faith, the nature of God, and the atonement of Christ, there must be unity. As Saint Augustine so aptly put it: "In essentials, unity, in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."​

For the most part, charismatics and noncharismatics are unified when it comes to the essentials of the historic Christian faith. Their primary differences involve nonessential Christian doctrine. Therefore while we my vigorously debate secondary matters within the faith, we must never divide over them.​

Not so, however, when it comes to the Faith Movement, there we must draw the line. The Faith Movement has systematically subverted the very essence of Christianity so as to present us with a counterfeit Christ and a counterfeit Christianity. Therefore, standing against the theology of the faith movement does not divide; rather, it unites believers. (pp. 47, 48)​

Now I know that most, if not all of you anti-wofers have read this book. This book may have even helped to fuel your antagonism towards the movement. Here are some questions that I want to discuss:

1. Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

Did he list what *he* thought were essentials ? That would give context . He might be right given his list . Given *my* list - no - no more so than most other methodologies .

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

Difficult to say . I am going to once again say : No more than most others . However , I would say that it is easier to become a cult than many others with that methodology . I was in a group that had one foot and some of the other foot in this theology and we were close to being a cult - the Lord finally put a stop to it .

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one http://www.christiandiscussionforums...es/biggrin.gif)

It didn't look as if he was making a case based on Auggie . He merely quoted him and stated that he agreed and went from there . Paul quoted a creten about cretens . Since the quote on cretens was that they were liars , it wasn't like he was using the person as a basis for anything - simply using it to help make a point .

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

I don't see that as what he was saying .

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims?

No .

Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

I don't see that he was saying that .

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

Let's discuss.

He didn't say anything about the adherents - just the movement . So , no reason for charity .

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think that anyone who spends his time criticising and finding faults with Christian movements other than his own has a problem with knowing the will of God in his life and ministry. The Scripture says "Be not unwise, but knowing what the will of God is." From what I read of the Scripture, the will of God is for us to go out into the world and make disciples for Christ. Every successful ministry that I know has had that as its focus. Every failed ministry has allowed itself to become distracted away from the commission that the Lord gave us and has gone into criticism of other movements, churches, etc.

Therefore when I see someone criticising others for what they believe, then I see a failed calling - someone who has missed the spiritual bus and is moving quickly into spiritual barrenness and unfruitfulness. Remember what Jesus did to the fig tree that was not bearing fruit.

Therefore I see Hank as a spiritual hasbeen who needs to get himself away with God and to review his Christian life and attitudes.

Concerning some of these big name ministries: Have a look at IICorinthians2:17: "For we are not as many, corrupting the Word of God (or, as it reads in the margin, making merchandise of the Word of God)." That is preaching the gospel for money - making a living out of the gospel. This made me worry about the spiritual standing of some of these big name guys who are making inflated salaries and living in luxury on the back of the gospel.

I am not worried about the ordinary pastor of a church who is usually paid the minimum salary and who has a genuine calling to the ministry, and whose congregation value his services and are very happy to provide the funding for him to do his work.

I have read quite a number of EW Kenyon's books, and have been very careful to see whether he is being true to Scripture in what he is teaching. Now you need to know that my personal theology is well rooted in Presbyterian Calvinism, and where Biblical evidence is essential for any teaching.

In all that I see, Kenyon provides strong Scriptural evidence for what he teaches. His teaching arises out of an exegetical treatment of the verses that he expounds. He has brought up some points that I have not realised before - such as much of what Jesus taught was to spiritually dead Jews. This explains some of the legalistic things that Jesus said which on the surface seemed to contradict what Paul taught later on. Kenyon believes that the Pauline Revelation was the continuation where the teaching of Jesus left off. This is consistent with Paul's conversion experience, where he was confronted by the personal presence of Jesus Himself, which made him an Apostle in the true sense of the word (where the qualification of an Apostle was that he was to have encountered Jesus on a personal level.)

Paul ministry was to show the risen Lord Jesus to the Christian church. Kenyon is correct when he says that Jesus' ministry was to the spiritually dead Jews. There were no born again believers there, because Jesus had not died or risen yet. The New Creation did not take place until the Day of Pentecost. Kenyon correctly points out that we need to be careful how we apply the teaching of Jesus to the Christian Church. I am of the opinion that much of the teaching of Jesus should be applied to unbelievers to show them that they are sinners and in need of salvation.

But Paul brings the revelation of the New Covenant and the New Creation to the church. Therefore, I can understand why Kenyon concentrates on what Paul teaches.

I think that Kenyon has been misinterpreted and misquoted by the people who came after him. He quotes the Scripture from Corinthians literally when he says that Jesus became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. I think that the literal interpretation of that Scripture is quite sound. If Jesus took our sin upon Himself on the cross, then He had to have taken our sinful nature in order to be our true substitute. That is why the Father turned away from Him. I think we need to more fully grasp the extent of how Jesus suffered spiritually as well as physically when He died for us on the cross. Paul's teaching is very clear on these points.

I am aware that some extreme elements of the WOF movement believe that if we make a confession in faith, God will honour it. But the error is that some have believed that they can say anything and it will come to pass. This has produced a wrong expectation in many Christians who have been deeply disappointed when it hasn't worked for them.

What Kenyon taught was that we need to base our confession on what the Word of God says about us, instead of confessing lack, failure, fear, doubt, etc.

For a person to say that he is healed of cancer because of the Word says that by His stripes we are healed is a correct confession because he is confessing what the Word says about his condition. But the method by which the person is going to be healed is quite another thing, because God is still free to use whatever means are available, including the body's own healing processes, medical intervention, or the miraculous. The confession of healing puts God in the forefront of the person's faith and brings trust and peace in God however things turn out. So what if the person dies of the cancer? The person has gone from this world to the presence of the Lord in faith and peace, instead of with fear and struggling.

I have thought very deeply about this notion of confession. I think that it much more spiritually healthy to have a godly confession based on what the Word says about us, no matter what the outcome is. We tend to get cynical when a person has a positive confession, and the outcome is not what we think it should have been. I think that this cynicism comes from a wrong expectation. There is also the principle of total surrender to the will of God, and having a good confession is part of that, but it also includes a total giving of oneself into the hands of God for Him to do whatever He plans for that person.

So, a person in poverty can correctly say that Jesus is his sufficiency, because he is confessing what the Word of God says about him in spite of the physical evidence to the contrary. So what if the person stays in poverty? Do we then try to counsel the Lord and tell Him what we think He should do? Would we want to be that arrogant?

Of course, the critics of WOF know that to question God would be arrogance, so they turn around and criticise the believing person for his 'failure' to get healed or to gain more money to live a more comfortable life; or they criticise the ministries who teach about having a godly confession and call them fakes and liars because God does not heal or prosper enough people. This attitude is still arrogance toward God because their attitude is still the same, just merely transferring the attitude toward the creature rather than the creator.

The Holy Spirit has fully described the New Covenant Christian in the Word as taught by Paul. We are expected to form our confession on that Word, and put the Word into practice in our lives. Whether God brings the expected results or not is completely up to Him. He is the Potter and we are the clay. We need to be surrendered to His will, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, and accept whatever comes our way trusting that the final outcome for us is going to be glorious.

 

[Atlantians]

Concerning some of these big name ministries: Have a look at IICorinthians2:17: "For we are not as many, corrupting the Word of God (or, as it reads in the margin, making merchandise of the Word of God)." That is preaching the gospel for money - making a living out of the gospel. This made me worry about the spiritual standing of some of these big name guys who are making inflated salaries and living in luxury on the back of the gospel.

Indeed.

I am not worried about the ordinary pastor of a church who is usually paid the minimum salary and who has a genuine calling to the ministry, and whose congregation value his services and are very happy to provide the funding for him to do his work.

I am worried about the individual pastor beacuse they are leader their flock!

I have little respect, and even anger, towards the pastor of the Church locally who allowed the "apostle" Charles NDifon into his church to "heal" and nearly shipwreck my faith.

In all that I see, Kenyon provides strong Scriptural evidence for what he teaches. His teaching arises out of an exegetical treatment of the verses that he expounds. He has brought up some points that I have not realised before - such as much of what Jesus taught was to spiritually dead Jews. This explains some of the legalistic things that Jesus said which on the surface seemed to contradict what Paul taught later on. Kenyon believes that the Pauline Revelation was the continuation where the teaching of Jesus left off. This is consistent with Paul's conversion experience, where he was confronted by the personal presence of Jesus Himself, which made him an Apostle in the true sense of the word (where the qualification of an Apostle was that he was to have encountered Jesus on a personal level.)

Thats all good and true.

Paul ministry was to show the risen Lord Jesus to the Christian church. Kenyon is correct when he says that Jesus' ministry was to the spiritually dead Jews. There were no born again believers there, because Jesus had not died or risen yet. The New Creation did not take place until the Day of Pentecost. Kenyon correctly points out that we need to be careful how we apply the teaching of Jesus to the Christian Church. I am of the opinion that much of the teaching of Jesus should be applied to unbelievers to show them that they are sinners and in need of salvation.

Good point, while Paul's teachings were to the already saved.

But Paul brings the revelation of the New Covenant and the New Creation to the church. Therefore, I can understand why Kenyon concentrates on what Paul teaches.

Fine.

Note also that the Old Testament was also written to the spiritually dead. All of the Old Testament.
Written by those few made spiritually alive in forethought to the salvation of Christ.

I think that Kenyon has been misinterpreted and misquoted by the people who came after him. He quotes the Scripture from Corinthians literally when he says that Jesus became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. I think that the literal interpretation of that Scripture is quite sound. If Jesus took our sin upon Himself on the cross, then He had to have taken our sinful nature in order to be our true substitute.

But if Christ had taken on the sin nature, that would have therefore made him a sinner, thus making him repugnant to God, and removing him from the place of a propper sacrifice, which was intended to be pure and without blemish as the Old Testerment says.

Therefore, Kenyon reduces Christ, intentionally or not, to a mere sinner while on the cross, in spite of the whole fact that Christ was intended specifically to not be a mere human on the Cross, but an innocent perfect God suffering for the crimes against Him that His own creation committed.

Kenyon therefore reduces God to a mere man.

Paul never intended Christ to be tought to have had taken a sin nature at that point, but rather "became sin" for us, in the sense of becoming the condemnation, becoming dead for us, as the innocent lamb dies on the altar.
Becoming the target.

You have to take that passage in light of the rituals it was intended to refference, remember the sacrifices were types and shadows of Christ, applying in metaphore to the intended action of Christ's death.

Thus Christ must not have had a Sin Nature, lest he be made a sinner and deserving of the punishment that was supposed to be undeserved, deserving of the rejection intended to be undeserved.

A replacement infinitely valuable do to Him never having deserving it, and infinetly experiencing the horror of an undeserved rejection and death.

That is why the Father turned away from Him. I think we need to more fully grasp the extent of how Jesus suffered spiritually as well as physically when He died for us on the cross. Paul's teaching is very clear on these points.

Jesus suffered spiritually of course, but spirituall far more than we could experience because of His retained perfection and sinlessness.

I am aware that some extreme elements of the WOF movement believe that if we make a confession in faith, God will honour it. But the error is that some have believed that they can say anything and it will come to pass. This has produced a wrong expectation in many Christians who have been deeply disappointed when it hasn't worked for them.

What Kenyon taught was that we need to base our confession on what the Word of God says about us, instead of confessing lack, failure, fear, doubt, etc.

For a person to say that he is healed of cancer because of the Word says that by His stripes we are healed is a correct confession because he is confessing what the Word says about his condition.

Until you exegete scripture and see that by His WOUNDS (stripes is King James English and meant something a little different then) we are saved from sin is what healed means in the context of the verses surrounding it.

Having the phrases: "wounded for our transgressions"
then "by his wounds we were healed" clearly dilineates for us the true meaning of the passage:

He was wounded for our sins, and by those wounds we were healed from those sins.
Not from sickness or injury.

This bad exegesis on Kenyon's part is exactly what people who are against Kenyon point to.

The confession of healing puts God in the forefront of the person's faith and brings trust and peace in God however things turn out. So what if the person dies of the cancer? The person has gone from this world to the presence of the Lord in faith and peace, instead of with fear and struggling.

If they die of cancer after rejecting treatment in the name of the doctrine, then they have been murdered.

If they claim a lie, then they have been decieved.

God heals, He does not mislead.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am worried about the individual pastor beacuse they are leader their flock!

I have little respect, and even anger, towards the pastor of the Church locally who allowed the "apostle" Charles NDifon into his church to "heal" and nearly shipwreck my faith.

I was talking about pastors in general. There is always the exception to the rule.

But if Christ had taken on the sin nature, that would have therefore made him a sinner, thus making him repugnant to God, and removing him from the place of a propper sacrifice, which was intended to be pure and without blemish as the Old Testerment says.

Therefore, Kenyon reduces Christ, intentionally or not, to a mere sinner while on the cross, in spite of the whole fact that Christ was intended specifically to not be a mere human on the Cross, but an innocent perfect God suffering for the crimes against Him that His own creation committed.

Kenyon therefore reduces God to a mere man.

I think that it is a matter of interpretation. A person is not going to be saved or lost whatever the interpretation about the extent that sin affected Jesus. I don't think that it reduces God to a mere man at all. It is not what Kenyon teaches. Jesus laid aside His glory and became a mere man. He left His God attributes behind. This is what John says in his book about Jesus coming in the flesh. Jesus only regained his God status at His resurrection.

Thus Christ must not have had a Sin Nature, lest he be made a sinner and deserving of the punishment that was supposed to be undeserved, deserving of the rejection intended to be undeserved.

A replacement infinitely valuable do to Him never having deserving it, and infinetly experiencing the horror of an undeserved rejection and death.

He took upon our sinful nature. This is how He became our substitute. Unless He did take upon Himself our sinful nature while on the cross, we could never have been recreated and received God's nature. Eternal life, which we have received is actually the nature of God, and that cannot co-exist with a sin nature in a person. The sin nature has to be removed first before a person can receive the nature of God.

Until you exegete scripture and see that by His WOUNDS (stripes is King James English and meant something a little different then) we are saved from sin is what healed means in the context of the verses surrounding it.

Having the phrases: "wounded for our transgressions"
then "by his wounds we were healed" clearly dilineates for us the true meaning of the passage:

He was wounded for our sins, and by those wounds we were healed from those sins.
Not from sickness or injury.

You have to quote the entire Scripture from Isaiah. Isaiah 53:4 says "Surely our sicknesses He Himself bore, and carried our pains..."
So there is room for interpreting the Scripture as including sickness as well as sin which Jesus bore on the cross.

This bad exegesis on Kenyon's part is exactly what people who are against Kenyon point to.

Much of the Pentecostal church, and not only the WOF movement, accept that Jesus bore our sicknesses as well as our sins on the cross. So it wasn't only Kenyon who had that view. Also, you need to understand that in the 1940s and 50s there was a general healing revival going on in certain parts of the United States, where many people were genuinely healed. This is a well documented chapter in Pentecostal church history. I am not talking about the imaginary healings (by faith) that go on in many quarters today. These were actual healings supported by medical evidence. So we can understand that Kenyon would have been influenced by the reality that was going on around him at the time of his ministry.

It is easy to look back and apply our present day experience to things that were happening 60 odd years ago. Kenyon was a man of his time, and his contemporaries had no doubts about his teaching then, because the reality of it was happening around them. These days we don't see those healings and therefore it is easy to say that he is wrong. But we are only saying that because we don't see the reality of regular, documented healings happening in our churches today like they were in his day.

If they die of cancer after rejecting treatment in the name of the doctrine, then they have been murdered.

If they claim a lie, then they have been decieved.

God heals, He does not mislead.

Although some may take the extremist view that they should not get medical help when sick, the majority of Christians believe that God is just as much a part of the medical profession as He is in the miraculous healing ministry.

How about applying your theory to accepting Christ? What evidence do you have after accepting Christ as Saviour, for a full assurance of Salvation? Are we not taught to confess our faith and say we are saved? How do we know we are New Creations in Christ outside of what the Word of God tells us. Yet we confess the Word of God in that area, don't we? We behave as if we are saved, and yet all we have to go on is that the Word of God says that we are saved.

But you might still feel that you are lost. Therefore, if you feel that way, does confessing the Word of God that you are saved make you believing in a lie?

What about the Scripture in Ephesians where it says that we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places? What if I have no physical evidence of it? Would it make my confession a lie?

What about my Righteousness? If the Word of God says that Jesus Himself has become my Righteousness, and He is my Wisdom and Strength, and I don't feel it, do I then confess that I am not righteous, wise or strong after all?

Are you saying that in some areas we believe our feelings or our physical state to be the truth, and the Word of God to be a lie?

If I read in the Bible that Jesus has borne my sicknesses and carried my pains, and I am afflicted with them and then confess that in spite of the physical evidence I take a position of faith and say that Jesus has taken these on Himself for me, then am I believing in a lie?

Actually there is no physical evidence that God actually exists, and they cannot find any actual historical evidence that Jesus existed in the way the gospels describe Him. Therefore our belief in God and in Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all on the basis of faith in what the New Testament tells us.

So what do we believe and confess? The physical evidence, or what we believe is in the New Testament?

 

[JimB]

I think that anyone who spends his time criticising and finding faults with Christian movements other than his own has a problem with knowing the will of God in his life and ministry.

*****

What is the alternative, Oscarr—blindly accepting everything that is laid on our plate? I have a bit of a problem with this accept-everything-judge nothing approach to Christianity. That’s a formula for the gullible, not the discerning.

Aren’t we told: Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess.5.21-22).

To call obeying that clear instruction as “having a problem with knowing the will of God in his life and ministry” is a bit out of bounds, don’t you think?

~Jim

It is your disposition, not your position that makes you happy (or unhappy).​

 

[LogonLalein]

Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

To put it another way, am I ignorant for voicing my oppinion and saying why I believe it, or are you, for calling another ignorant without validated reasoning or evidence?

Your post simply could be cut and pasted to any issue, any topic, and any person.

Just remove WoF and replace it with the subject matter..

LOLOL even louder..
The fact remains you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no clue as to what WoF believes beyond the meaning of the mnemonic, and you proved that by the absurd things you are saying about it.
I repeat... you are either willingfully ignorant... or a liar who is bearing false witness against millions of you brother believers. I choose to think the best about you and will simply consider you ignorant.
To anyone considering these posts...
this guy simply does not know what he is talking about. What he says represents in no way what WoF believes.
It is not even worth trying to debate.
It is like trying to debate that the holocaust did not happen. The people who want to believe it did not happen will never be convinced otherwise.

 

[LogonLalein]

Yes, enduring reading all that junk made me a bit testy. Sorry.

I'm a bit older than you, and so probably longer in the faith, but I see what HH did as a very good thing. There was some major boys that had a clear revelation of God's word that from that point backed up and opened their bibles once again.

I'm sorry, but CIC was a very good work ordained by God for a particular purpose which it served well.

The understanding of Faith is greater because of it.

That's how I see it anyway.

CiC was a pack of lies an twisted half truths.