what is WOF???

[Epiphany]

Andrew I can't understand why on earth WOF puts so much value on temporal wealth... wealth that the moths and rust eat at and destroy. We should be seeking heavenly treasure... I'm not saying wealth is cursed but neither should we be saying poverty is a curse... because so many of our bretheren suffer for the sake of the gospel. If it's a curse then our dear persecuted bretheren must have it wrong... funny that, the fastest growing church in the world is the persecuted church... I am told China's church is growing by something like 20000 a week!! The worries of this life haven't choked them and all they ever do is proclaim the good news to whoever will hear it... something we really need to do in the Western church, and drop the pursuit of wealth, the gimmicks, the false teaching and simply preach Christ.

Have you read Revelation 3:14-22? This is the church of the present age, at least in the Western world... claiming they are rich, claiming they need nothing... we need to pursue the white garments, and pursue the gold refined by fire.

It's not nice to hear but the Word isn't always pretty but it is always TRUE. God bless

To Life Immortal

I applaud you; you speak what I believe about WoF. I was told by ex-Pagans, like myself, that WoF is a form of Christianity mixed with New Age and Wiccan beliefs.

I am poor and disabled. I am bipolar and have DID. Is that because I'm not Christian enough or lack faith? I don't think so. I see it as a challenge and it makes me depend more on God rather than my own self. It makes my faith stronger because it has to be so I can survive.

We are not little gods; we are fallen human beings. I am Eastern Orthodox and some people have the wrong idea what is meant by deification. It is a gradual becoming like Lord Jesus. It will become totally realized after the End Time when we are with Lord Jesus forever.

To me, WoF is dangerous.

Peace and Long Life
~*~ Epiphany ~*~

 

[orthotomeo]

Before I say anything, I want to say that I accept you as my brother in Christ if you have trusted only in His death, burial and resurrection in your place, on your behalf, for your sins. Just want to lay that groundwork - because in case you believe otherwise (and I have no reason to believe you do), we have much more important issues to discuss. I just want to avoid either of us being blindsided by assuming something about the other that isn't true (been there, done it, want to avoid it). I'm sure you understand.

I have no problems with Disp theology. Many WoFers are dispensationalists, including the late Ken Hagin.

I agree there are elements of disp. theology sprinkled all over the place. Elements of covenant/reformed (c/r) theology, too. And that's exactly my concern with many pentecostal/charismatic brethren I've known.

Disp'ism and c/r theology are completely contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. They cannot mix. Consistent c/r folk and consistent dispies (like me) agree on that fact and go from there.

I have found, however, that others who claim neither label (pentecostals, for instance, tho not only pentecostals) adhere to both systems often without even realizing it. Hence many pentecostals who wait for the pretrib Rapture (a primarily dispensational tenet which c/r folks generally oppose) while at the same time believing the Church/Body of Christ has replaced national Israel and has inherited the blessings and promises God made to her (someting consistent dispy's oppose as the foundation of c/r theology). And it doesn't stop there. In short, it's a mess.

So to me, folks who take a doctrinal "middle of the road" approach - treating disp'ism and c/r theology like two tables at a buffet, picking and choosing what they want and leaving the rest - end up with a confusing mix of incompatible doctrines. Those I've personally known can't see the trees for the forest, and would flatly deny it whenever it's pointed out to them. Perhaps there are exceptions, however.

I just have a problem with the appeal to dispensationalism when a person wants to make another out to be a heretic. When a person says, "That promise is NOT for today" then it is not based on Scripture but rather on a bias theological interpretation.

So you believe "every promise in the Book is mine"? What if it could be proved from Scripture that certain promises are not for today? Just asking...

Pink had a whole lot that I could never agree with. Ever read his book, The Sovereignty of God? Not worth lining the kitty litter box with.

Yeah, one of the worst books ever written under the banner of Christ. I read it as a brand-new believer who knew next to nothing and thought, "If this is how the God of the Bible really works, I want NOTHING to do with Him." Fortunately, Pink's reflections bear little resemblence to the God Who Is.

However, he also had some good things to say. [/qoute]

Just as no one is right on every point of doctrine, nobody's wrong on every point of doctrine, either.
__________________

 

[victoryword]

VW please, you sound hot under the collar... isn't it just like WOF teachers to duck for cover and say "why criticise" "you're judging"

If I sound hot under the collar it is probably due to misrepresentations like the above.

- but we are called to speak the truth in love.

Then let's start hearing more TRUTH and less heresy hunting regurgitation.

I wish no harm or ill on the WOF teachers or whatever...

Yes, I suppose your recomendation of some heresy hunting web sites and your baseless arguments really meant no harm. I am sure Herod meant no harm when he cut of John the Baptist's head. After all, he was just keeping a promise.

I do however pray that God brings down the church who speaks anything outside of the Word of God.

So do I. I hope he starts with the heresy hunter phenomenon.

You have only proven that you can't take it when the Word conflicts with your own belief system. There was no need to carry on like you just did but hey... on we proceed. You didn't prove me wrong and I'm not going to go over all this needlessly, but I will politely point out the Word on this one...

Have no problems with the Word of God. My problem is with those of you who claim to be teaching God's Word when all you are doing is offering opinions of what you think WoF theology is and then giving bias interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand I took God's Word and proved you wrong and exposed your theological bias and you claim I "carried on." So be it.

Mate you can't be a Christian if you doubt the resurrection, of course I believe that! But to say that Jesus died spiritually makes the Cross null and void because He cannot be God and die spiritually, it's just not possible. Or you could also imply Jesus didn't have the Spirit till the resurrection... that makes Him just a man and again the cross is void, we are lost. Case closed.

Okay, then I suppose you are in a Christianity all by your lonesome self and of your own invention because the link below proves that this is a historical understanding of what Scripture teaches:
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/append_a.html
Case Closed Mate.

Hey if I'm wrong then you find me the scripture where it says Jesus was tortured in hell!

I never said that he was, but the possibility is there depending on how one interprets the phrase "pangs of death" in Acts 2:24-31. See the following links:
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/tenrsn3_1.html
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/tenrsn/jds/append_c.html

You find me where the word of God says that satan is lord of hell!

I never said that he was. You said that.

Your references are open to interpretation, and you have yours...

So when I cite a Scripture reference it is open to interpretation, but when YOU give your verdict concerning WoF you are speaking the word of Almighty God. Interesting.

I believe that Jesus didn't magically become sin! The sins of the world were, if you like, imputed or transferred over to Him.

Heresy Hunter Tactic: Building a STRAWMAN to later knock down. You make it sound as if Faith Teachers claim to teach a magical change of Jesus becoming sin and then you refute your own invention. You amuse me mate

He wasn't sin itself, He definitely wasn't the devil - that day will come when the antichrist comes to claim he died for us... O and if Jesus holds the words of truth and life, what's debatable about "IT IS FINISHED" then?

Another strawman. No Faith Teacher ever said that He was the devil. However, 2 Cor. 5:21 disputes you when you say, He wasn't sin itself. Most who study the Greek believe that the passage is to be read literally. So did certain reformers. Should I cite them for you?

Powerless Christianity, hey? So I suppose the Christians of the persecuted church are powerless too, hey... mate read up on church world affairs...

Did you come here, begin a debate with me on WoF doctrine, and after I respond you now want to identify yourself with the persecuted? Please mate, you are too funny

this is where the REAL power is, and they DON'T equate themselves with God... they practice somthing all of us Western Christians could do a little more... it's called humility. So yeah, 20000 new converts a week is powerless, fair enough, I'll certainly ask God to make me powerless then, hey

Are YOU winning 20,000 converts a week? When you are I might take you a little more seriously. However, is this going to be a SCRIPTURAL discussion or are you going to continue to "smite by comparison." The persecuted church does not prove WoF doctrine as false. You must either take God's Word and prove it wrong or find a new calling because apologetics is not your field if God's Word is insufficient for proving me wrong.

OK ok, the "little gods" thing, yes we will share heaven, yes we will share ruling earth, yes we are now grafted into His chosen... NO WE ARE NOT GODS. I really couldn't care less what other people say even the "fathers" of the faith. Even great men are fallible. My only concern is the word of God. If Kenneth Copeland starts preaching evolution at you, will you believe it? Just because other leaders say it makes it no less credible... we need to find our own answers via the Word and the Lord speaking to us.

My point for mentioning other leaders is not to affirm the doctrine, but to prove that it is not something invented by the Faith Movement. You are targeting faith teachers and I am showing you that your argument is not only with them but with many who has said the same thing.

And since you could care less what others have said I am beginning to care less about what you have to say because you now seem to be placing your self as doctrinally superior to others.

Umm dude what are you talking about now? I never disputed that a dead man walked, I never disputed that a man can be healed... I said, and please READ IT THIS TIME:
1- Benny Hinn first enthused, then backed down quietly. So he LIED.
2- Kenneth Copeland wishes to take a mechanism to lead people to repentance (kindness) and use it to make money
You tell me where I disputed theology?

You are attempting to use the alleged incidents as part of your dispute against WoF theology. If you weren't then these would not have been mentioned in your post. Even if the above were true it does nothing to disqualify WoF teaching no more than those Pentecostals who have been caught lying, stealing, drunkenness and committing adultery disqualifies Pentecostalism.

O man, VW you really need to read the Scriptures in context - God grants desires when they are lining up with the Word...

STRAWMAN: Did I ever say that God grants desires OUTSIDE of His Word? NO I did not. Once again you have been cold busted inventing something that we do not teach. On the contrary we have taught that anything you seek God for must line up with His Word.

You claim I quoted Scripture out of context. At least I quoted some. You gave me the powerless Christian mantra that "God supplies only your NEEDS, not your WANTS." You were proven wrong and now you claim I am out of context. I cannot make that same accusation with you because you did not support your beliefs at all with the BIble. Pitiful mate.

What's more important to you... a $500,000 home or saving someone you love... which brings more glory to God...

Why should I have to choose between the two?

PC - do you mean to tell me then by claiming you are not a sinner you will eventually not be one IN THIS LIFE???

I speak what God's Word says. His word says that I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:21). I choose to believe that. You are entitled to continue referring to yourself as a sinner if you wish.

Dispensationalism (yawn) - yah man, believe it if you want... I guess that God's saying yes and amen to you stoning your neighbour for them commiting adultery. Good stuff.

False dichotomy: We were discussing PROMISES, not the LAW OF MOSES. Mate, you are really proving that you have an axe to grind - but you only brought the STICK and left the axe at home. You're grinding a STICK mate.

FAITH A FORCE - umm dude you said "critics twist this to...(mean) a force like in Star Wars" No of course you didn't say that...

Yes, I did mate.

No VW don't even think about questioning Pentecostals, part of your movement is derived from us so I suggest you do no further damage to the WOF movement. On second thoughts, feel free to question us... I am open. I don't pretend we are perfect.. just forgiven. And unlike the barrage I received, I will not abuse you. You are entitled to your opinion, although I'll be frank and I'll say that WOF doesn't sit too easy with me. I really mean this VW, God bless... the truth will set you free.

Where did I question Pentecostals? I already know that WoF is derived from the Faith MOvement. That is the IRONIC thing. The Pentecostals came from the HOLINESS and FAITH-CURE movements. Who was the biggest persecutors of the Pentecostals? The Holiness church. Now Pentecostals like you are criticizing us. The persecuted often later become the persecutors.

Have a nice day, mate.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It is always interesting to see someone who has no idea what WOF teaches come along and begin to tell us what we really believe.
I have been WOF going on 30 years (I read Hagins "I Believe in Visions" back in 1975) ... back when it was called "the faith movement".
Someone comes along, reads HHs book or surfs through a heresy hunter website, and suddenly he is an expert and is going to set us straight.

I think I know what I know.

Anyone who says we "do not believe in the resurrection" or that "Jesus was just a man" or that "Jesus ... magically became sin"is either deluded, mis-informed, or outright lying.

 

[victoryword]

Didi, it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

 

[Theophilus7]

What do you understand by the term "flesh", didaskalos, in the scriptures you cite?

Cheers.

 

[Theophilus7]

... since they promise this is available to all of us and is a blessing of the Lord... in fact they often say this is Abraham's blessing (O MY GOODNESS!) Abraham's blessing is SALVATION! It says so in Galatians 3.
Blessings everyone, and may the Lord open our eyes.

You are correct in saying that Abraham's blessing is the singular blessing of justification by faith. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that covenantal 'right standing with God' results in material blessings, as illustrated in Abraham's case. Whilst the WoF teachers are wrong to assert that Abraham's blessing is material prosperity, the result of Abraham's blessing (right standing with God) certainly involves material benefits.

 

[victoryword]

Before I say anything, I want to say that I accept you as my brother in Christ if you have trusted only in His death, burial and resurrection in your place, on your behalf, for your sins. Just want to lay that groundwork - because in case you believe otherwise (and I have no reason to believe you do), we have much more important issues to discuss. I just want to avoid either of us being blindsided by assuming something about the other that isn't true (been there, done it, want to avoid it). I'm sure you understand.

Yes indeed I have trusted in the full redemptive work of Christ as you mention in your post above. Furthermore, I believe in the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the pre-existence of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the Father as God, the Trinity, the necesity of Christ blood to bring redemption, Christ being the only way to salvation, a literal heaven and hell, the existence of angels and devils, and the Scriptures as the inerrant Word of God in their original manuscripts. I hope I did not leave anything out

I agree there are elements of disp. theology sprinkled all over the place. Elements of covenant/reformed (c/r) theology, too. And that's exactly my concern with many pentecostal/charismatic brethren I've known.

You are right. people often do not know how certain people and theologies have influenced their own.

Disp'ism and c/r theology are completely contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. They cannot mix. Consistent c/r folk and consistent dispies (like me) agree on that fact and go from there.

I have seen comparison charts. They do seem different in most respect though I thought I saw some similarities, but that was a while ago.

I have found, however, that others who claim neither label (pentecostals, for instance, tho not only pentecostals) adhere to both systems often without even realizing it. Hence many pentecostals who wait for the pretrib Rapture (a primarily dispensational tenet which c/r folks generally oppose) while at the same time believing the Church/Body of Christ has replaced national Israel and has inherited the blessings and promises God made to her (someting consistent dispy's oppose as the foundation of c/r theology). And it doesn't stop there. In short, it's a mess.

So to me, folks who take a doctrinal "middle of the road" approach - treating disp'ism and c/r theology like two tables at a buffet, picking and choosing what they want and leaving the rest - end up with a confusing mix of incompatible doctrines. Those I've personally known can't see the trees for the forest, and would flatly deny it whenever it's pointed out to them. Perhaps there are exceptions, however.

Definitely food for thought on my part.

So you believe "every promise in the Book is mine"? What if it could be proved from Scripture that certain promises are not for today? Just asking...

You can give it a try. I like a good challenge.

Yeah, one of the worst books ever written under the banner of Christ. I read it as a brand-new believer who knew next to nothing and thought, "If this is how the God of the Bible really works, I want NOTHING to do with Him." Fortunately, Pink's reflections bear little resemblence to the God Who Is.

I agree. That book stinks to high heaven. Among the many writing projects that I have planned is a rebuttal of this book. You should read what A. C. Gaebelin had to say about this book. He broke fellowship with Pink after the book was published. He felt that Pink made God out to be some kind of "monster."

However, he also had some good things to say. [/qoute]

Just as no one is right on every point of doctrine, nobody's wrong on every point of doctrine, either.
__________________

That is what I would like for WoF opponents to see. There are some things that the WoF could easily be wrong on, however, our opponents forget several things:
1. They are probably in error on some points of doctrine themselves.
2. They negelect to mention what is right about the movement.
3. Those things that we more than likely are correct about, they think are wrong due to their own theological leanings.
4. They leave us so busy defending ourselves that we cannot seem to have a good dialogue and explain what we really mean (vice their personal understanding of what we mean).

 

[SavedByGrace3]

What do you understand by the term "flesh", didaskalos, in the scriptures you cite?

Cheers.

Partially by process of elimination...
It is not the spirit, for reasons explained in the first post.
It is not just the body, since some of the issues are more than just "lust"
It must include the soul, or mind, since the functions of the "flesh" include things that would require consiousness or thought, emotions, and will.

So the "flesh" is the unrewed mind and the uncrucified flesh (body lusts).

This assumes some things like the spirit does not include thought in the same way that the mind does... rather the spirit function is that of "belief", or what I have come to call a "logosystem": which is the sum total of all things that have been revealed and therefore believed in the inner man.
Thanks T7. If you have some thoughts I would ask you to share as I respect your opinion much.

 

[orthotomeo]

I know WoF folk usually don't like to mention his name, but wouldn't it be accurate to say Hobart Freeman and his followers took WoF doctrine to its logical outcome, as far as consistency is concerned?

Not a loaded question, nor would I dare make light of it given what happened.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

Didaskolos,

I'd like to see some Scriptural support for your definition of "flesh," please? Not saying you don't have it, just asking for it.

o.

 

[Theophilus7]

Hiya,

Partially by process of elimination...
It is not the spirit, for reasons explained in the first post.
It is not just the body, since some of the issues are more than just "lust"
It must include the soul, or mind, since the functions of the "flesh" include things that would require consiousness or thought, emotions, and will.
So the "flesh" is the unrewed mind and the uncrucified flesh (body lusts).

I would define the flesh as a spiritual sickness which, whilst it exploits the body in particular through the five physical senses, is to be distinguished from the body. (The body is not evil, as the Greeks supposed.) I think it is reasonable to assert that "the flesh" has its seat in the soul, not the spirit of born again man.

Of course, we can only say this if we believe spirit and soul are not one and the same, as Paul implies in 1Th. 5:23.

This assumes some things like the spirit does not include thought in the same way that the mind does... rather the spirit function is that of "belief", or what I have come to call a "logosystem": which is the sum total of all things that have been revealed and therefore believed in the inner man.

I think you are correct to uphold the trichotomy of 1Th. 5:23. But at the same time, I would urge you (and other WoFers) to place greater stress upon the unity of man. Notice that Paul, in wishing that “your spirit and soul and body be preserved whole and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” deliberately uses the singular rather than the plural form of the verb tereo (be preserved) and the singular form of the adjective holokrolos (whole) (1Thess. 5:23). (In other words, he calls "spirit and soul and body" an "it" which is "you", not a "they".) I do not think this implies a rejection of trichotomy or dichotomy as such, but it does confirm that Paul conceived of man as an integrated whole. I think when we see man as an organic whole (albeit composed of three conceptually separate elements; spirit, soul and body), we no longer have any difficulties in discussing shared functionality (eg. the soul thinks/feels/believes etc., the spirit thinks/feels/believes etc.) whilst at the same time leaving the way open to affirm different levels of sanctification (it is possible for the spirit to be more sanctified than the soul because they are ontologically distinct). A trichotomy that emphasises unity could say that sanctification/faith/other influences of God are rooted in the spirit as the Holy Spirit's organ in man (it is hard to tell whether to translate pneuma Spirit or spirit sometimes in the NT!) whilst also affirming the involvement of the soulish faculties, like the mind (avoiding the anti-intellectual tendencies of more primitive forms of trichotomy).

Is any of that at all useful, or do I ramble?

Thanks T7. If you have some thoughts I would ask you to share as I respect your opinion much.

Why, thank you didaskalos. I enjoy our little discussions too. I have wanted to contribute to your threads on Dual nature theory and spiritual regeneration, but I've been pressed for time.

Till later.

 

[orthotomeo]

VW,

What if it could be proved from Scripture that certain promises are not for today? Just asking...

You can give it a try. I like a good challenge.

Matthew 21:22.

You probably guessed I'd make that my first stop.

If it's ok with you, I'd like to extend this beyond promises to include blessings, commands, warnings and judgments.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

Theo,

The body is not evil, as the Greeks supposed.

Thanks for bringing that up - it was a major point of my original question, tho I didn't mention it.

o.

 

[Theophilus7]

Prosperity... my pet PEEVE. I don't care who invented this doctrine, the fact WOF is preaching it suggests their leaders don't read their Bible, or at least enough. In the OT there was no Holy Spirit available to all like in the New. God's favour was therefore shown in the physical... Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Solomon - ALL and more still were blessed with monetary wealth. Flip into the second half of the Book and we discover that Jesus sends the Comforter, available to ALL. Now if we can be given the greatest possible blessing which is eternal (salvation, holy spirit, eternal life) why would God need to promise temporal blessings?

and by that don't mix OT with NT theology... this is the WOF Prosperity doctrine, a mix of old covenant and new covenant...

Actually, I have a problem with this view. It evidences a Marcionistic tendency to devalue the OT scriptures, supplanting the holism of Hebrew thought with the philosophical spiritual-material dichotomy rooted in Greek philosophy. It is true that the NT perspective is longer-term and more attention is given to spiritual reality, but this does not force us into the rigid either/or categories you have described. Such thinking surely forces a radical discontinuity between the Old and the New Testament which can only prove destructive to the doctrine of divine inspiration.

I am out of time. Off to bed.

 

[Jim B]

It evidences a Marcionistic tendency to devalue the OT scriptures, supplanting the holism of Hebrew thought with the philosophical spiritual-material dichotomy rooted in Greek philosophy.

Huh?

English, please.

 

[victoryword]

Huh?

English, please.

I am sure that Theophilus won't mind my answering for now. He can add more later if he wishes. About 138 A.D., a rich ship owner named Marcion from Sinope (northern Turkey) began to teach that the Old Testament was inferior to the New Testament and should not be in the canon of Scripture that currently makes up our Bible. This truly offended the church fathers such as Tertullian, Ireneaus, and others and they severely opposed him through their writings. It is believed that Marcion had been influenced by false Gnostic beliefs.

This is what Theo means by "Marcionistic Tendencies." Again, I am sure that he can expound further. Just couldn't resist showing off my wee bitty knowledge of SOME church history

 

[victoryword]

VW,



Matthew 21:22.

You probably guessed I'd make that my first stop.

If it's ok with you, I'd like to extend this beyond promises to include blessings, commands, warnings and judgments.

o.

Actually I wasn't sure where you would begin. Why do you believe that Matt. 21:22 is not for this dispensation?

 

[victoryword]

I know WoF folk usually don't like to mention his name, but wouldn't it be accurate to say Hobart Freeman and his followers took WoF doctrine to its logical outcome, as far as consistency is concerned?

Not a loaded question, nor would I dare make light of it given what happened.

o.

It's a valid question and I trust you (until you give me a reason not to)

Freeman went beyond the sound tyeaching of Scripture to a deadly extreme. Not only that but he actually attacked other faith teachers. Much of Freeman's excesses and how it is distinguished from the majority of WoF teaching is made plain in probably the only WoF critique book that I could personally ever recommend, which is "The Health and Wealth Gospel" by Bruce Barron. Barron criticizes the Faith Movement but is sympathetic and fair.

I think Freeman later died from polio because he refused medical help. Word-Faith preachers never went to this extreme of speaking against doctors and medicine. On the contrary, they often recognized that most doctors were servants of God.

 

[AlabamaMan]

MOD HAT ON.
I am not pointing fingers at anyone...I want to say now that if you are not charismatic you are NOT to be debating in here. If you have not already you need to read the thread in this forum that says READ this first before posting, and post there. I have seen some things in this thread on both sides that have not been very nice. I hope that changes real soon or we will have to close this thread. I am not saying its bad to discuss, but if your going to discuss or debate the doctrine you cannot claim it as heresy or anything else. The best thing to do is state your point and use scripture to back it up, not just what so and so says. If you find your self getting upset, leave the thread and come back later and think about your answer. We can do this nicely and without harshness if we try.

MOD HAT OFF.