What do you know about E. W. Kenyon?

[JimB]

What do you know about E. W. Kenyon, the godfather of the Word of Faith movement?
\o/

 

[victoryword]

I know what has been said AGAINST him is often untrue:

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/kenyondefense.html

 

[Suffolk Sean]

What do you know about E. W. Kenyon, the godfather of the Word of Faith movement?
\o/

Not much

 

[riverpastor]

Godfather as in ...

Guido and Jimmy-t'ree fingers is gonna comedown 'dere and break ya legs!!!

I've seen refutations on both sides of the fence Jim. That he was a part of the New Mind thought but he actually left before all that took place at the college he was involved in...

How 'bout you, huh? fuhgedaboudit.

 

[lovesblessing]

What do I know about E. W. Kenyon? Have mercy!


I know this, his books have some of the most clear and consise short and to the point sentences' of just about anyone I've ever read! You ought to try reading his book "The Name of Jesus"....awesome, straight to the point and no nonsense, just truth!

Sort of makes you go, "well, duh?"

Blessed Be Jesus My Lord!!!!!

lovesblessing

 

[Theophilus7]

What do you know about E. W. Kenyon, the godfather of the Word of Faith movement?
\o/

What do you [think?] you know about him, Jim?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Biography:
"E.W. Kenyon: The True Story"
McIntyre, Joe

 

[muffler dragon]

Biography:
"E.W. Kenyon: The True Story"
McIntyre, Joe

I didn't know that "New Kid on the Block" was a biographer. Wow!

The things one can learn each day.

 

[JimB]

What do you [think?] you know about him, Jim?

No, I don’t know much about him, T7. I do know that his doctrines strongly influenced Kenneth Hagin Sr. and through Hagin the entire Word of Faith movement. I have heard Kenyon’s distractors say that he was a little off-center theologically and a much too independent thinker. But for me that is no problem, I don’t mind being stretched. Some folks say the same thing about C. S. Lewis (my mentor).

Hank Hanegraaf (my least favorite heresy hunters and one I hate to cite) claims that Kenyon dabbled in cultic stuff that influenced his belief like Science of the Mind, Unity School of Christianity, Christian Science, and New Thought. HH does give references to his claims.

Also, I have heard that Kenyon was the first to advance the idea that Jesus died spiritually as well as physically. In his book What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (which I would like to find a copy of) Kenyon claimed that after His death on the Cross, Jesus died spiritually, that Satan became His master, that He united with the enemy because His spirit came in possession of the Devil, that Christ’s spirit became infused with the sin nature of humans, and that Jesus suffered the agonies of hell for three days.

While, if true, these are interesting thoughts, I do not believe they are as clearly taught in scripture as they were developed in the mind of Kenyon.

According to Kenyon’s daughter, Ruth Kenyon Houseworth, who manages her father’s legacy, Hagin hijacked Kenyon’s writings, plagiarized and distorted them, and claimed credit for a lot of teachings that originated with her father. Hagin denied this and claimed to have taught many of Kenyon’s doctrines before he ever came in contact with his writings. Dan R. McDonnell (author of A Different Gospel), agrees with Mrs. Houseworth, citing a host of instances where Hagin plagarized Kenyon’s writings.

Apparently there is no love lost between the Kenyons and the Hagins.

\o/

 

[Suffolk Sean]

In all sincere honesty, how can one claim to have been plagerized if one is a minister and teacher of the Word? That would be saying that one came up with what one said as original intellectual property.

 

[JimB]

In all sincere honesty, how can one claim to have been plagerized if one is a minister and teacher of the Word? That would be saying that one came up with what one said as original intellectual property.

Plagarizing ideas is (IMO) more acceptable (and legal) than plagiarizing words. Plagiarism means to copy something as your own without giving proper credit to the source of your information. The non-believing world has a strong sense of justice about this. Plagiarism can get you sued, fired from your job, or expelled from school. For Christians, the principle we follow is to give honor to whom honor is due.

To me (IMO), it is a matter of integrity.

\o/

 

[victoryword]

Biography:
"E.W. Kenyon: The True Story"
McIntyre, Joe

This one is the best book that I have read so far. But along with this book I would also recommend a book by Geir Lie of Norway titled E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder or Evangelical Minister?

http://www.refleks-publishing.com/

I may not agree with all of Lie's conclusions, but he does adequately refute the idea that Kenyon dabbled in any type of Christian Science, universalims, and any of the other things he is accused of by his detractors.

 

[victoryword]

No, I don’t know much about him, T7. I do know that his doctrines strongly influenced Kenneth Hagin Sr. and through Hagin the entire Word of Faith movement.

While it is true that Hagin did embrace some of Kenyon's teachings, to say that he was strongly influenced is a very strong word. This is primarily a concoction of some Faith MOvement critics to create the so called "Kenyon Connection."

Hagin's primary influences were Pentecostal pioneers like Smith Wigglesworth, P. C. Nelson, Raymond T. Ritchie, Lillian B. Yeomans, F. F. Bosworth, and Mrs. C. Nuzum among several others. Faith MOvement critics would like everyone to believe that every thing Hagin taught was via Kenyon which is not true.

There are some things Kenyon taught that Hagin openly rejected, for example, Kenyon's belief on the evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Kenyon rejected tongues as the initial evidence. However, Kenyon was still respected in many Pentecostal circles and was often invited to speak in their churches.

Hank Hanegraaf (my least favorite heresy hunters and one I hate to cite) claims that Kenyon dabbled in cultic stuff that influenced his belief like Science of the Mind, Unity School of Christianity, Christian Science, and New Thought. HH does give references to his claims.

These are ideas that Hanegraaf promoted primarily due to the faulty research of D. R. McConnell's book, A Different Gospel. These beliefs have been refuted by both defenders and detractors of the Faith MOvement.

For example, Geir Lie, whose book I recommend above, is not a WoFer. However, he defends Kenyon against these false charges. Dale Simmons, a college professor and historian, has also written a book refuting the false charges against Kenyon. Let me assure you that Simmons is no fan of the Faith Movement. Also, Simmons tried to get McConnell (they were both attending ORU at the same time) to look at Kenyon's evangelical roots. McConnell did not listen to Simmons and went ahead in publishing his false report.

Another notable critic who refutes the false charges against Kenyon is Robert BOwman. Bowman used to work at CRI with Hanegraaf. Bowman is no fan of the Faith MOvement either.

With this evidence stacked against Hanegraaf, I am surprised that anyone would still believe anything he has to say on the subject.

Also, I have heard that Kenyon was the first to advance the idea that Jesus died spiritually as well as physically. In his book What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (which I would like to find a copy of) Kenyon claimed that after His death on the Cross, Jesus died spiritually, that Satan became His master, that He united with the enemy because His spirit came in possession of the Devil, that Christ’s spirit became infused with the sin nature of humans, and that Jesus suffered the agonies of hell for three days.

While, if true, these are interesting thoughts, I do not believe they are as clearly taught in scripture as they were developed in the mind of Kenyon. .

Some of the ideas above may be unique to Kenyon, most of them are not. JDS has been a teaching that is centuries old.

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/jesus_died.html

Read especially Appendix A.

According to Kenyon’s daughter, Ruth Kenyon Houseworth, who manages her father’s legacy, Hagin hijacked Kenyon’s writings, plagiarized and distorted them, and claimed credit for a lot of teachings that originated with her father. Hagin denied this and claimed to have taught many of Kenyon’s doctrines before he ever came in contact with his writings. Dan R. McDonnell (author of A Different Gospel), agrees with Mrs. Houseworth, citing a host of instances where Hagin plagarized Kenyon’s writings.

Apparently there is no love lost between the Kenyons and the Hagins.

\o/

According to other reports, Hagin kept a very good relationship between himself and Ms. Houseworth. Furthermore, in his book, The Name of Jesus, Hagin quotes Kenyon extensively and credits him for the ideas.

To this day, the Kenyon Society itself actually defends Hagin against the charges of plagiarism:

http://www.kenyons.org/faq.htm#Plagiarism

And to conclude, Hanegraaf has to deal with his own issues of plagiarism before he can continually point the finger at others:

http://cultlink.com/plagiarism/Hankplag.doc

 

[victoryword]

Plagarizing ideas is (IMO) more acceptable (and legal) than plagiarizing words. Plagiarism means to copy something as your own without giving proper credit to the source of your information. The non-believing world has a strong sense of justice about this. Plagiarism can get you sued, fired from your job, or expelled from school. For Christians, the principle we follow is to give honor to whom honor is due.

To me (IMO), it is a matter of integrity.

\o/

At first, I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think it does deserve some kind of response. Paul L. King, an ORU professor, wrote a very good paper on John A. MacMillan:

http://www.pneumafoundation.com/resources/articles/pk_macmillan.pdf

Within the paper is an interesting footnote on Hagin and the issue of plagiarism, which I believe addresses your concern in your post:

58Kenneth Hagin, Authority of the Believer (Tulsa, OK: Faith Library Publications, 1967). Several years after Hagin’s publication of Authority of the Believer, Oral Roberts University graduate student Dale Simmons (who had become a Christian in a C&MA church) was studying the writings of Kenneth Hagin, when he observed a remarkable similarity between MacMillan’s 1932 The Authority of the Believer and Hagin’s 1967 Authority of the Believer. Simmons concluded that Hagin had plagiarized MacMillan’s writings. See Dale H. Simmons, “Mimicking MacMillan,” unpublished term paper, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Apr. 23, 1984. See also McConnell, A Different Gospel, 69-71.

On the other hand, other scholars have refuted the charge of plagiarism. William DeArteaga, for instance, dismissed the accusation of plagiarism by Hagin in his book Quenching the Spirit. DeArteaga concluded that Hagin was not intentionally plagiarizing, but rather possessed a photographic memory, and engaged in “the informal borrowing that happens every Sunday from countless pulpits across the nation. . . .
​

Hagin’s books and pamphlets are mostly transcribed radio and camp-meeting sermons.” For a lengthy discussion of DeArteaga’s explanation, see William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1992), 228-229. Other scholars have confirmed this as well as pointed out to me by James Zeigler. See also James R. Zeigler, “Oral Tradition and Pentecostal Publications: The Problems of Doing History in an Electronic Age,” a paper read at the Society of Pentecostal Studies, Southeastern Bible College, Lakeland, Florida, Nov. 9, 1991; conversation with James Zeigler, Oral Roberts University. My listening to a taped sermon on the authority of the believer by Hagin in 1967 further confirms this hypothesis. Kenneth Hagin, “The Authority of the Believer,” sound recording, 1967. It would appear, then, that Hagin’s use of MacMillan is thus very similar to that of Billheimer, and also the practice of Bosworth, and even MacMillan himself, as cited above. In today’s academic and professional publishing arenas where precise documentation and accuracy are important, such undocumented borrowing by these writers would be considered abnormal. But in the informal, non-academic, and often loose atmosphere of preaching and teaching, uncited borrowing from one another has been and continues to be commonplace and accepted practice in many circles.
​

 

[SavedByGrace3]

No, I don’t know much about him, T7. I do know that his doctrines strongly influenced Kenneth Hagin Sr. and through Hagin the entire Word of Faith movement. I have heard Kenyon’s distractors say that he was a little off-center theologically and a much too independent thinker. But for me that is no problem, I don’t mind being stretched. Some folks say the same thing about C. S. Lewis (my mentor)....

Lets expand the list of people the Kenyon detractors do not like a little further:
Billy Graham
Mother Teresa
James Kennedy
Bro Hagee
etc
etc
etc
_________<--- Enter your favorite preacher/teacher here, and of course
_________<--- Enter your name here

Detractors are a dime a dozen. Take everything they say and boil it down... you might have a cup of coffee.

 

[Theophilus7]

No, I don’t know much about him, T7. I do know that his doctrines strongly influenced Kenneth Hagin Sr. and through Hagin the entire Word of Faith movement. I have heard Kenyon’s distractors say that he was a little off-center theologically and a much too independent thinker. But for me that is no problem, I don’t mind being stretched. Some folks say the same thing about C. S. Lewis (my mentor).

Derek Vreeland contends that Kenyon was within orthodoxy - albeit "on the fringes". Whether or not we agree with Vreeland, I think you will probably find that Kenyons distinctives are more reactionary than anything else. For example, if I am correctly informed, Kenyon felt people didn't properly appreciate what Christ had to go through for us, and out of this was born his doctrine of Christ's descent into hell. Kenyon perceived many weaknesses in the teaching of his time, and sought to compensate - unfortunately he went too far, in my opinion.

Hank Hanegraaf (my least favorite heresy hunters and one I hate to cite) claims that Kenyon dabbled in cultic stuff that influenced his belief like Science of the Mind, Unity School of Christianity, Christian Science, and New Thought. HH does give references to his claims.

Hanegraaf isn't the most reliable of apologists, I'm afraid. He isn't qualified, for one thing, and there is a storm of controversy surrounding the strange event of his election as Walter Martin's successor. But I shan't go there. Suffice it to say, I should take Hanegraaf and his followers with a good pinch of salt, if I were you. I would have thought Mcintyre, Bowman, Simmons (and possibly DeArteaga) would be a better bet.

The school Kenyon attended did become a hub of New Thought some time after Kenyon left and probably was beginning to be influenced by some of these ideas during Kenyons time there, but even if Kenyon was exposed at all it seems highly unlikely that he was imbibed in New Thought, as some have claimed. Certainly, the mature Kenyon was very critical of this sort of thing.

Also, I have heard that Kenyon was the first to advance the idea that Jesus died spiritually as well as physically. In his book What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (which I would like to find a copy of) Kenyon claimed that after His death on the Cross, Jesus died spiritually, that Satan became His master, that He united with the enemy because His spirit came in possession of the Devil, that Christ’s spirit became infused with the sin nature of humans, and that Jesus suffered the agonies of hell for three days.

While, if true, these are interesting thoughts, I do not believe they are as clearly taught in scripture as they were developed in the mind of Kenyon.

Personally, I reject Kenyon's doctrine of the atonement. (But are we really willing to condemn to hell those who believe it, Mr. Hanegraaf?!) I would have to agree with Andrew Perriman (see Faith, Health and Prosperity) that it mythologises the atonement and creates an unnecessary intellectual encumberance on the preaching of the gospel.

According to Kenyon’s daughter, Ruth Kenyon Houseworth, who manages her father’s legacy, Hagin hijacked Kenyon’s writings, plagiarized and distorted them, and claimed credit for a lot of teachings that originated with her father. Hagin denied this and claimed to have taught many of Kenyon’s doctrines before he ever came in contact with his writings. Dan R. McDonnell (author of A Different Gospel), agrees with Mrs. Houseworth, citing a host of instances where Hagin plagarized Kenyon’s writings.

Apparently there is no love lost between the Kenyons and the Hagins.

It is possible Hagin read some of Kenyon's [many] Christian influences before reading Kenyon himself. With regards to Kenyon's daughter, I would be suspicious of anything Hanegraaf or McConnell (not McDonnell) have to say on that subject. The President of the Kenyon Gospel Society (if that's the correct name of the ministry) does not appear to share this view.

 

[JimB]

[/color][/font][/color]

While it is true that Hagin did embrace some of Kenyon's teachings, to say that he was strongly influenced is a very strong word. This is primarily a concoction of some Faith MOvement critics to create the so called "Kenyon Connection."

Hagin's primary influences were Pentecostal pioneers like Smith Wigglesworth, P. C. Nelson, Raymond T. Ritchie, Lillian B. Yeomans, F. F. Bosworth, and Mrs. C. Nuzum among several others. Faith MOvement critics would like everyone to believe that every thing Hagin taught was via Kenyon which is not true.

There are some things Kenyon taught that Hagin openly rejected, for example, Kenyon's belief on the evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Kenyon rejected tongues as the initial evidence. However, Kenyon was still respected in many Pentecostal circles and was often invited to speak in their churches.



These are ideas that Hanegraaf promoted primarily due to the faulty research of D. R. McConnell's book, A Different Gospel. These beliefs have been refuted by both defenders and detractors of the Faith MOvement.

For example, Geir Lie, whose book I recommend above, is not a WoFer. However, he defends Kenyon against these false charges. Dale Simmons, a college professor and historian, has also written a book refuting the false charges against Kenyon. Let me assure you that Simmons is no fan of the Faith Movement. Also, Simmons tried to get McConnell (they were both attending ORU at the same time) to look at Kenyon's evangelical roots. McConnell did not listen to Simmons and went ahead in publishing his false report.

Another notable critic who refutes the false charges against Kenyon is Robert BOwman. Bowman used to work at CRI with Hanegraaf. Bowman is no fan of the Faith MOvement either.

With this evidence stacked against Hanegraaf, I am surprised that anyone would still believe anything he has to say on the subject.



Some of the ideas above may be unique to Kenyon, most of them are not. JDS has been a teaching that is centuries old.

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/jesus_died.html

Read especially Appendix A.


According to other reports, Hagin kept a very good relationship between himself and Ms. Houseworth. Furthermore, in his book, The Name of Jesus, Hagin quotes Kenyon extensively and credits him for the ideas.

To this day, the Kenyon Society itself actually defends Hagin against the charges of plagiarism:

http://www.kenyons.org/faq.htm#Plagiarism

And to conclude, Hanegraaf has to deal with his own issues of plagiarism before he can continually point the finger at others:

http://cultlink.com/plagiarism/Hankplag.doc

>
>
>
>

Thanks VW. You make a very strong case. You are a blessing.

\o/

 

[lovesblessing]

Also, I have heard that Kenyon was the first to advance the idea that Jesus died spiritually as well as physically. In his book What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (which I would like to find a copy of) Kenyon claimed that after His death on the Cross, Jesus died spiritually, that Satan became His master, that He united with the enemy because His spirit came in possession of the Devil, that Christ’s spirit became infused with the sin nature of humans, and that Jesus suffered the agonies of hell for three days.

While, if true, these are interesting thoughts, I do not believe they are as clearly taught in scripture as they were developed in the mind of Kenyon.[/QUOTE]

Hi! In case you are interested in the book you mentioned, here is a link to the Barnes and Nobel website and they sell his books! http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=e+w+kenyon&userid=ygx1DoFEEL

I also have a question for you, if Jesus didn't die spiritually, wouldn't whomever He raised from the dead first, before He died, have been capable of being the Savior? If being raised from the dead physically is all it took, wouldn't it have been someone else besides Jesus? Just a thought, not meant to upset anybody.

Blessed Be My Lord Jesus!!!!!!

lovesblessing

 

[muffler dragon]

To purport an idea of spirtual and physical death is to stake a claim in nihilism, is it not?

If my physical bodies dies, then my spirit is released from the physical constraints; yet I still exist. If the physical and spiritual components of 'me' die; then I fail to exist completely. Am I mistaken?

m.d.