what is WOF???

[SavedByGrace3]

I posted this last year... I hope it is appropriate once again:


Anyone can call themselves WOF, and this has caused a great deal of problems. These problems can be observed simply by browsing around these boards for a few minutes. These problems can be summarized as such(forgive me if I ramble here, I am composing):

1. WOF is not a organization, and so these is no actual written set of teachings that declare "this is what we believe". Therefore there is no standard that identifies what is acceptable and what not acceptable, who is a WOFer and who is not a WOFer.

2. Anyone can declare themselves to be WOF. Because of this, the movement inherits accountability for every teaching, action, and method of every declared WOFer... even if the teaching is clearly not a mainstream WOF teaching. If a teacher or leader declares himself WOF and then does anything "questionable" then all WOF believers inherit the act as if they done it themselves.

3. Because WOF is not a structured organization and because the movement as a whole inherits all the practices of all who claim to be a part of it, the movement does not have the protection a structured organization would have and suffers accordingly. If a structured organization has a leader that says/does something "questionable", then the organization as a whole can point to some standard and refute the teaching. WOF cannot do this. Therefore:

4. WOF inherits accountability for every teaching, every word written or spoken by anyone who claims to be WOF or even teaches one or more of the commonly accepted WOF teachings.

5. Effectually, if you teach WOF teachings like "healing is a part of the atonement" and "you will have whatsoever you say", then you are considered WOF. Therefore WOF inherits accountability for many teachers/leaders who do not even declare themselves WOF. Because of this WOF inherits accountability for all non-WOF teaching that they may hold. If a teacher or leader teaches one or more of the WOF teachings and also teaches something that WOF on a whole does not teach, then WOF gets hung with those teachings also.

6. If someone who is considered WOF makes a "questionable" statement, and even if that statement was made many years ago, then all WOF is hung with accountability for the statement for all time. Even if WOF as a movement refutes the statement they are still held accountable. Even if the person who made the statement recants WOF is held accountable.

7. The standard that by which WOF is being measured is also fuzzy, and is pretty much whatever the critic wants it to be. Hank Haneggraff uses something called "historic Christianity" which is just something he made up so that he could sound authoritative in his criticism. The fact is, this standard is so loose and undefined that it can mean anything and everything the author wants it to mean. It is a blunderbust rather than a ruler, and could be leveled at any church or group and achieve the same results it has had toward WOF. It is a blank check for anyone who wants to criticize any believer on any Bible subject. It is the closest thing to inquisitional type witch hunting that we see today.





No organization I have ever been a part of is held to such impossible standards of accountability, and it all goes back to:

1 That there at present is no declared and accepted doctrinal standard for the WOF movement. Because there is no declared standard the standard defaults back to anything and everything spoken by anyone who teaches any WOF teaching.

2.The standards by which the WOF movement is being measured are not defined or universally accepted and changing constantly so that even if the movement wanted to make peace they could not. The lines keep moving, and the target is virtually invisible.



That is why the WOF controversy exists, and why the discussion is never ending.



Is there a solution?

Many WOF teachers have solid statements of faith that clarify exactly what they believe. Churches that profess to be WOF churches have statements of faith that clarify exactly what they believe. Even so, these are loosely knit organizations with no central governing body that all WOF people can gather around. Most who criticize the WOF teaching reject these statements of faith, and insist on using the above listed logic to fault the movement. The Charismatic movement never did consolidate and become an organization like the Pentecostal movement did. It more or less existed and continues to exist within all the churches. The WOF will likely not be able to do this.

 

[orthotomeo]

A few random points before I'm off for the evening:

Hobart Freeman: I believe in credit where credit is due, for good or ill. I also admire consistency, even where it is wrong. Freeman and his (late) followers rejected much-needed medical attention because they literally believed "by His stripes we are healed." Were they misled? Deceived? Just plain wrong? Sure. But give credit where credit is due: no one on this board can deny they WERE more consistent with standing on that verse and claiming it by faith, than most others who say they believe it but then submit to chemo or open-heart surgery (no need to name names there, you know about a dozen of them already). At least the Freemanites were consistent with what they said they believed and, sadly, proved it. I admire that about them, if nothing else. On the other hand, Mrs. Fred Price, Joyce Meyer, Oral Robers, et al, I do not admire because they went under the knife after building careers on telling OTHERS they can be healed by faith ALONE. "Physician, heal thyself" and all that.

Marcion: he was a screwball, and I'm no fan. But one thing he had in his favor - he really tried (and failed) to figure out what was so different about the apostle Paul, who had been largely ignored by the early church "fathers" in favor of the 12 disciples. For all his faults (ok, heresies) at least Marcion attempted to question assumptions and think outside the box. I'm all for that.

Matt 21:22 - spoken while Christ Himself said He was sent to none but the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not Gentile "dogs."

Also, to apply this verse today. . .well, take a look at 2 Cor 5:16, contrasted with Romans 1:3.

'night,

o.

 

[victoryword]

A few random points before I'm off for the evening:

Hobart Freeman: I believe in credit where credit is due, for good or ill. I also admire consistency, even where it is wrong. Freeman and his (late) followers rejected much-needed medical attention because they literally believed "by His stripes we are healed." Were they misled? Deceived? Just plain wrong? Sure. But give credit where credit is due: no one on this board can deny they WERE more consistent with standing on that verse and claiming it by faith, than most others who say they believe it but then submit to chemo or open-heart surgery (no need to name names there, you know about a dozen of them already). At least the Freemanites were consistent with what they said they believed and, sadly, proved it. I admire that about them, if nothing else. On the other hand, Mrs. Fred Price, Joyce Meyer, Oral Robers, et al, I do not admire because they went under the knife after building careers on telling OTHERS they can be healed by faith ALONE. "Physician, heal thyself" and all that.

What you state above is not totally true about the Faith Teachers. They certainly do teach healing is in the atonement (and 1 Pet. 2:24 is not the only passage used in teaching this), but they also taught the place that doctors have in assisting us as well. For example, here are some quotes from Charles Capps and Frederick K. C. Price:

Here's how I feel about doctors and medicine. If I need a doctor, I'll go to a doctor. If I need medicine, I'll take it. I don't sit around saying, "I don't want to miss God's best." If I am sick I've already missed God's best. We should confess the Word daily. We Build our faith and develop ourselves in God's Word. But if you get sick, don't feel condemned. (Capps)

"I am trying to help some of you husband's who put your wives and children into bondage, and make them suffer, just because you want to stand in faith. That is great for you to stand in faith, and I believe that you should do so, but I don't think that you should impose that on your wife and children."(Price)

Further in his book, Dr. Price says:

"Thank God that medicine is available if you need it. There is no point in you tossing to and fro all night long, in pain, and not sleeping, when you have a pain pill sitting right by your bed." (Price)

What you seem to be implying is that one must choose one or the other: Either to believe that healing is provided in Christ's redemptive work and disgard medical help or take medical help only and do away with the belief of "healing in the atonement". However, the Scriptures make no such false distinction or gives pressures believers to make such an unnecessary adjustment to their belief system.

Jesus spoke well of doctors and used them as an illustration of His own work among sinners, yet He never denied anyone miraculous power. The woman with the issue of blood had seen many doctors. Jesus did not condemn her for having seen doctors but failing to come to Him first. No healing was denied her on such a basis.

Paul had a great healing ministry but he also had Dr. Luke traveling with him. There is no indication that Luke gave up his medical practices. On the contrary, Paul still referred to Luke as the "beloved physician" in his epistles.

Therefore, you may see an inconsistency in the WoF Movement's advocation of both medical help and miraculous healing by faith, but the Bible does not make such a distinction nor pressures anyone to choose one and give up the other or vice-versa. So I am sorry that you feel the way that you do, but you have no BIBLICAL basis for feeling the way that you do.

Marcion: he was a screwball, and I'm no fan. But one thing he had in his favor - he really tried (and failed) to figure out what was so different about the apostle Paul, who had been largely ignored by the early church "fathers" in favor of the 12 disciples. For all his faults (ok, heresies) at least Marcion attempted to question assumptions and think outside the box. I'm all for that.

Well, every nut seems to have their good points. Marcion was definitely strong in his beliefs, as whacked out as they were. One has to admire a guy for that.

Matt 21:22 - spoken while Christ Himself said He was sent to none but the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not Gentile "dogs."

What are you talking about? That was NOT spoken on the same occasion. Isreal is not mentioned anywhere within that chapter and definitely not within the context of his teaching in Matt. 21:22. So where are you getting this from?

Also, to apply this verse today. . .well, take a look at 2 Cor 5:16, contrasted with Romans 1:3.

'night,

o.

I read both passages and neither of them do anything to prevent the believer from claiming Jesus' promise in Matt. 21:22. I think you are being a little extreme in your dispensationalism.

 

[Andrew]

Good posts VW. If only there were 10 more of you here *LOL*.

 

[Theophilus7]

Good posts VW. If only there were 10 more of you here *LOL*.

Yikes. Ten VW's all with steam coming out of their ears?! I wouldn't wish that on anybody... heehee. (J/k victoryword ).

On a serious note, it would be nice if more WoFers had the book-knowledge our friend VW has. For WoFers out there who would like to be in a better position to defend their faith (and improve it), you would do well to read E.W. Kenyon: The True Story (Joe Mcintyre), Quenching the Spirit (Bill DeArteaga) and The Health and Wealth Gospel (Bruce Barron), among other things.

McIntrye's book (which I have read bits of) is useful as a historical defence of WoF theology (it doesn't prove WoF theology, but it does root it in orthodoxy). Bill's book has some good points, defending 'spiritual laws' and prosperity (within certain boundaries) among other things. Bruce Barron's book, which I have recently obtained and am working through, recognises the positives in WoF teaching whilst warning of the dangers and excesses.

 

[Andrew]

Or we could also look at the lives of VW, diddy and Quaffer, and ask ourselves if these WOFers are fanatics obessesed with health and wealth, and teaching heretical nonsense (as we are so commonly accused of.)

Or are they true Christians who love the Lord and his Word, and have produced much fruit in their lives.

 

[Theophilus7]

Huh?

English, please.

Sorry, JimB, for the barrage of technical jargon. I was a little rushed and was obliged to say a lot in a few words. (It may also have something to do with a quasi-subconscious mental reflex reaction which I can trace back to my early childhood... )

I am sure that Theophilus won't mind my answering for now.

Not at all.

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."

Yup.

Again, I am sure that he can expound further. Just couldn't resist showing off my wee bitty knowledge of SOME church history

You probably know more Church history than I do, victoryword. Tis not one of my strong points. Not yet, anyway .

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.

Let me try and expand on these points and explain what I meant.

1. Marcion hated Judaism, the OT. and the bits of the NT. which didn't strike his fancy. Marcionistic thinking devalues the OT, and can do this in quite subtle ways. Messianic Jews would probably go so far as to assert that all Christians, including myself, are, to a greater or lesser extent, Marcionistic, without realising it. I think there may be some truth in that claim.

2. With regards to Greek philosophy, Plato taught that spiritual reality was more real and superior to material reality. Many of the Greeks considered the body as evil and wanted to escape it. Unfortunately, a significant number of prominent persons in our Church history were unduly influenced by Greek philosophy esp. Platonism (St. Augustine comes to mind) and passed on a lot of wrong philosophical ideas to the rest of us. And Philosophy is like leven which permeates the whole lump of dough. It's really hard to get out of the system! Even when you are aware of the existence of certain philosophical assumptions and believe them to be wrong, your thoughts may still be affected by them subconsciously in areas you wouldn't expect, if you have ever been fed them at any point in your life. And we have centuries of traditional thinking.

An obvious evil rooted in Greek philosophy is the Catholic practice of self-flagulation. A less obvious one is the tendency to inappropriately spiritualise passages like Isaiah 53, which speaks of bodily healing in the atonement, rather than read them "holistically".

3. I am suspicious of the tendency to dump the OT. in the "physical-therefore-undesirable" box. It smacks of the philosophical disdain for the material world which God created "very good". Certainly, the NT is more spiritual than the OT and the spiritual realities which were previously objectified in physical types have been properly unveiled. And I rejoice in that. However (and I am tentative on this point, because I have still a great deal to learn), I think there's a big difference between 1) removing the physical representation from a spiritual reality (NT) and 2) displacing a physical reality with a spiritual platitude. In the former case, one unveils and discloses something for what it is. In the later, one takes something that is and exchanges its substance for something else. I suspect this is the subtle trap we often fall into. Our Greek-influenced minds have no trouble engaging in the process of shedding spiritual realities from their physical types, but we don't stop there. We go on to munch up material realities and plant spiritual ones in their place. Our love of the spiritual and disdain of the physical can "detypify" and "spiritualise" at the same time as a continuous action and a single operation. It knows no distinction. One of the results of this subconscious activity is that we tend to ignore or spiritualise or dispensationalise material blessings for the body and our physical lives which we should embrace for what they are.

Again, I must emphasise that I am treading cautiously here. These are my own thoughts on the subject to date and its a sticky issue, no doubt replete with pitfalls.

4. My final point was that our friend here is in danger of undermining the doctrine of inspiration. I made this charge because the Bible is a unity. If the OT is seen to present a radically different worldview to the NT, then the two do not go together and we are forced to conclude that either Marcion was right about the OT or the NT is a Gentile invention. This does not mean that the NT cannot extend or modify or improve on the OT view of life. But we should not expect to see the OT's black as the NT's white and the NT's white as the OT's black, or something like that. This would be fatal. There must be continuity, not inversion. To illustrate: the OT is to the NT what a child's attempt to draw a wheel is to a perfect geometric circle. Not a very good analogy, perhaps, because the OT does not err from the reality, but it makes its point.

Does this mean anything to anyone, or am I gibbering?

 

[Theophilus7]

On the other hand, Mrs. Fred Price, Joyce Meyer, Oral Robers, et al, I do not admire because they went under the knife after building careers on telling OTHERS they can be healed by faith ALONE. "Physician, heal thyself" and all that.

Ahem. Oral Roberts has consistently taught that God's healing may be realised miraculously or through doctors. He has made a particular point of emphasising this. It is thanks to Roberts that this dangerous, negative attitude towards medical science, evident in early Pentecostalism, has been less prevalent in contemporary healing ministries.

 

[victoryword]

Andrew, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid that if there were ten of me, we ten would probably be fighting so much among ourselves that we would not have time to debate others

Anyway I think that you, myself, Didsworth (my nickname for Diddy), pmarquette, Godz Marine, and Quaffer sort of balance each other out. But for sure, I am more caught up in the desire to reach the lost and help the persecuted and poverty stricken then I am in "health and wealth." But I am sure that you will agree with me that we do not have to choose one or the other

Theophilus7

What do you mean "steam coming out of my ears?" WHY I OUGHTA .....! Ahem .... (Lost control for a second there - hehehehehehe ).

So you finally got that Bruce Barron book, aye? Of course you know that I don't fully agree with all of Barron's conclusions, but it has to be the most kind and balanced critique I have read yet (outside of Derek Vreeland's paper). As far as McINtyre's book, he certaily proves Kenyon's evangelical roots and refutes McConnell's diatribe, but you are right in that it is by no means a comprehensive defense of the Faith MOvement. I am afraid that this is what is lacking as far as books are concerned (though Mike Bruno and Ted Rouse put forth valient efforts in their books).

The gap is needing to be filled big time.

By the way, excellent post on your explanation of the "Marcionist" tendency to marginalize the OT.

 

[Theophilus7]

Andrew, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid that if there were ten of me, we ten would probably be fighting so much among ourselves that we would not have time to debate others

Lol.

Anyway I think that you, myself, Didsworth (my nickname for Diddy), pmarquette, Godz Marine, and Quaffer sort of balance each other out. But for sure, I am more caught up in the desire to reach the lost and help the persecuted and poverty stricken then I am in "health and wealth." But I am sure that you will agree with me that we do not have to choose one or the other

Suffice it to say, I'd be happier if you or didaskalos were sitting on 'the Word of Faith throne' (to borrow the language of some critics ), instead of K. Copeland. I can cope with your more reflective and moderate brand of WoFism. But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

So you finally got that Bruce Barron book, aye?

Uh huh. It came very quickly - 5 weeks earlier than I expected!

Of course you know that I don't fully agree with all of Barron's conclusions, but it has to be the most kind and balanced critique I have read yet (outside of Derek Vreeland's paper).

I rather get the impression Barron hadn't quite made up his mind. One moment he is bubbling with praise, the next he is making ghastly predictions. His critique is incomplete, as Bowman observes. However, he has many more positive things to say than Bowman and clearly sees the potential. A stick-in-the-mud evangelical (which is what I take Bowman to be), for all his theological sophistication, has his blind spots. Barron is much more open. He combines the 'child-like' element with the 'adult mind' - very pleasing.

As far as McINtyre's book, he certaily proves Kenyon's evangelical roots and refutes McConnell's diatribe, but you are right in that it is by no means a comprehensive defense of the Faith MOvement. I am afraid that this is what is lacking as far as books are concerned (though Mike Bruno and Ted Rouse put forth valient efforts in their books). The gap is needing to be filled big time.

But can it be done, I wonder? I look forward to your book, but how much do you intend to defend? I think even you, my valiant friend, must acknowledge the need to reject at least some parts of Word of faith teaching on Christology and the atonement, healing and prosperity, positive confession and the nature of faith, the nature of human beings and the being of God. Brother Hagin, though I respect him, left a bit of a theological mess behind him. If WoF is ever to become a viable theology in 'the marketplace of ideas', I think it must first come to terms with its weaknesses. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Probably you disagree .

By the way, excellent post on your explanation of the "Marcionist" tendency to marginalize the OT.

Thanks. I'm glad you liked it. McIntyre was saying something similar in his article on healing, I seem to recall.

 

[orthotomeo]

Theo,

Your point is well taken, but I ask your forgiveness for saying this: the appeal to medical science is a cop-out on the part of Roberts and others who believe as he did.

Let's be frank here: if we're to go back to Pentecost, why hasn't anyone gone all the way?

God used the apostles and their associates to heal all manner of injury and disease - instantly, permanently, and without medical intervention (such as it was back then). No one disputes this. No one can. And because no one can dispute it, my point once again is one of consistency.

They (Roberts, et al) claim the SAME gift of unlearned human languages the Pentecostal church had. Oftentimes the SAME gift of supernatural knowledge seen in the Pentecostal church is claimed. Some, as has been pointed out, claim to have raised the dead (tho no one ever has a video camera running when it happens, dang).

Yet the healing gift is altogether different to anyone who simply looks at it. The evidence of God's hand at work in the apostlic church was indisputible. Not so today! Roberts' appeal to doctors (and again, he's not the only one) is an admission that something is different now!

It is my opinion, so you may reject it. But to even acknowledge the potential need for doctors, when you've told people they can be healed "right there at home through your television set" looks like the signs of fakery damage control (or damage prevention) to me.

Yes, I've heard it said: "God can work through the surgeon's knife just as surely as He works through the apostles' touch."

But the obvious question is, why? If the gifts and miracles of 2,000 years ago are just waiting for Christians to claim today, the need for doctors makes NO SENSE in a consistently Pentecostal/book of Acts context. That's why I am forced to admire the tenacity of the Freemanites.

Need I remind us that God-hating atheists and idol-worshipping cultists also undergo mysterious, spontaneous remissions that leave doctors scratching their heads?

Yet Pat Boone's grandson did not rise up and walk after his first prayer and oil session in the hospital bed. But the boy Paul healed after falling out the window DID. In no way do I making light of the Boone's accident. But you see my point.

I recall hearing Pat Robertson had surgery for prostate cancer. Why? Didn't he, or his son, or SOMEBODY, see that one coming? Pat can sit in front of the camera, eyes closed, and say, "There's a sinus infection in Pasadena clearing up right now, thank you Jesus." Yet he goes under the knife. I'm not trying to pick a fight - I just don't get it!

The list goes on and on...R.W. Schambach...Jan Crouch...God raised her chicken from the dead yet He couldn't or wouldn't heal Jan's cancer? Some have no doubt toned down the miraculous healing aspect of their ministries. Others have not. It's beyond me how some of these people can get back in the TV saddle after going under the knife, only to preach the same old same old.

I'm not trying to throw all Pentecostals/Charismatics into the same bucket here, so please don't take offense if I've named anyone whose ministry you reject (probably with good reason). The point stands with them all, does it not?

o.

 

[Theophilus7]

Thank you for your response, orthotomeo (even if it was posted in the wrong place ). Basically, you are arguing for the following.

1. Authentic N.T Pentecostalism included total, instant, miraculous manifestations of healings for everybody at all times.
2. Modern Pentecostal experience does not result in total, instant, miraculous manifestations of healings for everybody at all times.
3. Therefore Modern Pentecostalism is not authentic Pentecostalism but a counterfeit.

It is very easy to refute your position.

1. Miraculous healings were not always instant (Mark 8:24).
2. Miraculous healings did not manifest all the time
a. Paul was obliged to leave Trophimus sick in Miletus (2Tim. 4:20).
b. Epaphroditus, while he was with Paul, nearly died of an illness (Php. 2:25)
c. Timothy, Paul's pupil, had frequent ailments (1Tim. 5:23).
d. Paul himself experienced sickness on the road (Gal. 4:13).
3. Natural means of healing were sometimes advocated when the situation had evidently not responded to prayer (1Tim. 5:23)
4. Jesus/the Holy Spirit was sometimes selective in who He healed (John 5:1-13).

We could go on. The point, however, is that the apostles couldn't switch on God's healing power whenever they pleased, and neither can we. The issue is much more complex than you would have it.

Oral Roberts is right to "expect a miracle" rather than demand one. We can gladly affirm that healing is, at least in general, God's will, without dictating to Him the precise means of attaining it. As Ken Blue points out in Authority to Heal, we must realise that we are interacting with a Sovereign God, sin, demonic opposition and a host of complex factors known and unknown which cannot be resolved by the type of simplistic reductionism you suggest.

 

[orthotomeo]

Two things I want to add before I go, so I'm not misuderstood as being just another ill-informed charisma-basher:

1. God still heals. I was once miraculously healed. This was some years ago, when I was in college. I was home alone, feeling fine. Suddenly something felt like a knife stuck in my back, around the kidney area. It was so bad, and hit me so suddenly, that everything started to go white; I almost passed out. I asked God to stop whatever it was, and He did. Instantly. I still have no idea what it was but it never happened again. So whenever I question "healing," I am NOT questioning God's ability. I am questioning what many claim to be the gift of healing. Many have falsely accused me of questioning God's power, in order to avoid responding to what I actually said. From what I've read I don't think you guys are that way, but I want to make sure we're on the same page here.

2. I've seen a particularly bad example of healing gift hypocrisy. This really happened a few years back when I worked in a Christian bookstore.

One day a woman, her sister and mother came in. The woman was in later stages of cancer - she was bald, frail and very weak. Her sister said she had a tumor the size of a softball somewhere inside her. When they finally came up to check out, I was at the register. I asked if we could add her to our prayer list, and they agreed. I said something to the effect of, "We'll pray for God's will in healing you."

An older man (late fifties, I'd guess) who I hadn't noticed in the other checkout line heard all this. As the women headed for the door, he yelled out, "Hold on there!" The women turned and he walked up to the sick one. He reached out and took the t-shirt she'd just bought, pressed it between his hands, and said, "Do you believe God can still heal?" Of course they did; so did I. "Do you believe God will heal you?" Naturally she said yes (who wouldn't in her situation?) He then said, "The power of the Holy Ghost is now going into this t-shirt, and when you wear it that anointing will go into you and heal your cancer." He held out the shirt to her and said, "Lay your hand where mine was. Is it warm?"

"Yes, it's warm," she said.

{Take any folded t-shirt, press it between your hands for 10-15 seconds, then ask someone if it's warm}

"That's the power of the Holy Ghost!" he said. "And when you're healed, I want you to come back here and tell HIM" (pointing at me) "that God can still heal!" He stomped out the door. They left a moment later.

Funny thing was...for all this guy's ranting about God's willingness to heal her cancer, he wore VERY thick glasses, behind which you could see his eyes were filming over by a blue-white layer of cataracts. All the time he preached on how to be healed, he himself was going blind. Don't know what happened to him or her, as we never saw any of them again.

This is an extreme example, I admit. But this delusional fellow, who God apparently chose not to heal of approaching blindness, had to transfer his body heat to a t-shirt to convince the lady it was the Holy Spirit's power.

Did God heal her? I don't know. But IF (hypothetically) she took what that guy said to heart and (hypothetically) refused the medical treatments she'd already received, what then? She would have been standing on a promise she thought God made to her, when really it was made by a guy who clearly could not be trusted as an authority on God's healing power. I bring it up only because I see clear similarities between what happened in the store and what happens in worldwide TV ministries.

So long, been nice talking. See y'all on the other side,

o.

 

[RevKidd]

Her healing took place.

It was either here on earth.

Or when she entered into the presence of the Almighty God.

Her suffering here on earth is minimal to the eternal glory that she is probably in.

 

[victoryword]

Lol.

Suffice it to say, I'd be happier if you or didaskalos were sitting on 'the Word of Faith throne' (to borrow the language of some critics ), instead of K. Copeland. I can cope with your more reflective and moderate brand of WoFism. But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

I won't go there. I'll just say that I appreciate men like Copeland even if he and I are not always in 100% agreement. I'll take him over certain radio and internet "apologists" any day.

I rather get the impression Barron hadn't quite made up his mind. One moment he is bubbling with praise, the next he is making ghastly predictions. His critique is incomplete, as Bowman observes. However, he has many more positive things to say than Bowman and clearly sees the potential. A stick-in-the-mud evangelical (which is what I take Bowman to be), for all his theological sophistication, has his blind spots. Barron is much more open. He combines the 'child-like' element with the 'adult mind' - very pleasing.

I think he was going all out to show that he neither wholeheartedly agreed with everything in the movement, but on the other hand he was just as troubled by the harsh criticism. I have been meaning to write him because according to Diego Hensely, Barron did a book review of CinC for Christianity Today. I am interested in reading it fully. (Hensley mentions this in his 55 Flaws of CinC which is on my webpage).

But can it be done, I wonder? I look forward to your book, but how much do you intend to defend? I think even you, my valiant friend, must acknowledge the need to reject at least some parts of Word of faith teaching on Christology and the atonement, healing and prosperity, positive confession and the nature of faith, the nature of human beings and the being of God. Brother Hagin, though I respect him, left a bit of a theological mess behind him. If WoF is ever to become a viable theology in 'the marketplace of ideas', I think it must first come to terms with its weaknesses. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Probably you disagree .

Some of the things you cite above is the reason I was telling someone on CARM that it would be difficult to write a systematic theology of Word-Faith beliefs. No two Faith Teachers are totally alike. Some are into eternal security, others are not, and other things.

Michael Bruno, in his book, Christianity in Power which is a rebuttle of Hank's book and a defense of WoF actually disagrees with JDS and does not care too much for the term (close your eyes Andrew) "little gods". Here again, even in some defenses of the Faith MOvement many of us show latitude. You can even see that on my own webpage in some of JDS apologetics and my article on "being equal with God" where I state that "being in UNION with Christ" is a better way to express the truths we are conveying.

Anyhoos, I had planned for over two years to write an article titled "Extremes and Balances in the WoF Movement". I never seem to get around to it so I plan to include in my book, whenever I get started on it.

Thanks. I'm glad you liked it. McIntyre was saying something similar in his article on healing, I seem to recall.

Yes he did, and he did an excellent job as well.

 

[Andrew]

Ahem. Oral Roberts has consistently taught that God's healing may be realised miraculously or through doctors. He has made a particular point of emphasising this. It is thanks to Roberts that this dangerous, negative attitude towards medical science, evident in early Pentecostalism, has been less prevalent in contemporary healing ministries.

I've always wondered about this. John G Lake and Smith Wigglesworth literally threw out their medicines when they decided wholeheartedly to depend 100% on God for their health. They were willing to 'go all the way' even if it meant dying.

But it was not a foolish decision based on pride. I believe they did that becos they truly had a great revelation of God as Healer. I mean, Jesus as healer was VERY real and personal to them, perhaps becos of the many miraculous healings they witnessed in their ministries and own lives.

And so they did it with genuine faith and total commitment, not to show off their faith.
Others, perhaps, are just trying to 'copy' them, hence no genuine faith based on fuller revelation, and hence get into all sorts of problems.

On this subject, John G Lake said something quite thot-provoking to me : "If we trust in Christ alone for our salvation, then we should also trust in Christ alone for our healing." And if you think about it, the Greek word for "saved" and "salvation" -- sozo-- means healing as well.

It was a long and moving article, where a surgeon/doctor gave testimony in one of Lake's meetings. He talked about how he has seen both sides -- medical science & Jesus the healer -- and how the former paled in comparison the miraculous.

maybe I'll scan it and post it here sometime.

I would love to be like Lake and Wigglesworth, but my faith is simply sorely lacking. Just a simple headache and I want to run to the medicine cabinet! I have more trust in Panadol to take care of my headache then in Christ as healer. How do I know? Well, after I pray for healing, I'm still wondering and wondering if its gonna work or when its gonna work. But after I take 2 tablets, I just go to bed without worries, knowing all will be well soon. *LOL*

 

[victoryword]

Andrew

I broke my ankle a couple of months ago. I took no pain medication and trusted God for complete healing. I was prayed for and the pain went away immediately. I was healed long before my doctor estimated that it would happen. I trusted God but thank God for the doctor who gave me a brace to put on until the healing completely manifested.

On the other hand, had a terrible toothache a couple of days ago. Prayed and popped an Advil in my mouth

I have trusted God for healing from headaches many times without medicine. On the other hand, I have not reached "toothache" faith yet - Hahahahahahahahaha

 

[reAsonX]

Andrew

I broke my ankle a couple of months ago. I took no pain medication and trusted God for complete healing. I was prayed for and the pain went away immediately. I was healed long before my doctor estimated that it would happen. I trusted God but thank God for the doctor who gave me a brace to put on until the healing completely manifested.

On the other hand, had a terrible toothache a couple of days ago. Prayed and popped an Advil in my mouth

I have trusted God for healing from headaches many times without medicine. On the other hand, I have not reached "toothache" faith yet - Hahahahahahahahaha

interesting
So you think there is a faith for one ailment, but that faith does not cover or work for others?

 

[billiefan2000]

TD Jakes

Juanita Bynum

Marilyn Hickey

Kenneth Copeland

Joyce Meyers

Benny Hinn

Paul Crouch

Fred Price

Creflo Dollar

Robert Robo-Bob Tilton

 

[victoryword]

interesting
So you think there is a faith for one ailment, but that faith does not cover or work for others?

You are doing one of three things:
1. You are asking a sincere question. If this is true then phrase your question better and in a less insulting way.
2. You have not followed along in this whole conversation and you therefore misunderstanding my post. Resolution to this is obvious. Read the posts and you'll know that I am not saying what you imply. This keeps me from having to re-explain what I have already said in previous posts.
3. You are making an insincere attack and criticism upon my post in a form of a question.

I have never said that there is faith for one ailment and not for another. Faith in God and His Word will accomplish anything that God has said can be accomplished and can appropriate any promise that God has made, including healing, for any part of one's body.

Along with faith one must also have patience. If one is able to believe God for a promise one might find themselves tested on that. One must then ask if they are able to tolerate the test. I felt the ability to endure the pain of a headache or a broken ankle to experience the power of God. Due to the excruciating pain inflicted from a toothache, I decided that I would rather relieve it quickly.

It has nothing to do with whether faith will work for one or the other, it had to do with whether or not I was willing to stand in faith for one or the other. I felt that my honest testimony in this area would help others to be free. Instead it just incurred further criticism (unless I am misunderstanding your post. If I am then please refere to point 1 above).

Is there not a place for honesty without having to be misunderstood? Do our critics always have to look for that needle in a haystack?