Word of faith teachers and other issues

[Entertaining_Angels]

A good analogy I like to use for the WOF teachings:

Imagine yourself baking a cake. You put in the best ingredients and do not skimp on anything. You have quality ingredients. Then at the very end, you throw in some strychnine (or some tasteless poison). The cake has been polluted and shouldn't be touched.

This explains how I feel about WoF teachings. I never thought that way until recently and I know that sounds harsh but some of the teachings are dangerous. Sure, they teach wonderful things as well, but you can't just take the good and throw out the bad. We're warned of that in the Bible.

I agree that Mr. Haangraaf's book stretches some elements but having lived with these teachings, I can tell you now that I agree with much of what he says. I just read him book after already dealing with this so I felt better able to read it without being swayed one way or another. Sure, I would have been skeptical a few years ago but no longer. I'm now learning about Christian Science and some other metaphysical types of teachings because I never had experience with those, and, you know what, sometimes I feel like I'm learning about the WoF. Lots of similarities and the background, when untwisted, is fairly similar.

Just boils down to the fact that I've heard the teachings 'in context' and now I know I was fed a wonderful cake with enough poison to do damage. I've had some serious emotional damage (that God has been healing) and many other folks who come out of the movement suffer the same.

Just call me ignorant, but, then again, I can give you the address of a church and some relatives who will agree with you.

 

[QuadraticEquation]

I'm not calling you ignorant. I'm calling those who make assertions based on ignorance ignorant. You had the decency to make your observations on your own personal experience rather than taking somebody else's word for something without getting the facts. I might disagree with you, but I can respect your views more than I can the ones I was addressing.


-Quad

 

[QuadraticEquation]

I would include Benny Hinn and Paul Crouch in the Word of Faith movement.

I don't know the other people, but I have seen both of them preach the same thing.

Binny Hinn changes his theology as often as he changes his socks. Last I heard he was saying he doesn't adhere to WOF teaching. Paul Crouch basically goes along with anything his guests say. He's not a teacher, he's a christian broadcaster and a businessman. Zamar was right about Parsley, Hinn, Curello ... etc.

There's so much misinformation out there that needs to be addressed. Hank Haneggraff is responsible for much of it. The allegations of plagarism from Kenneth Hagin are based on ignorance. Most of Kenneth Hagin's books are taken from transcripts of sermons he preached. He often quoted from Kenyon in his sermons and during the editing process somebody dropped the ball when it came to crediting Kenyon. When Hagin did sit down and write a book where he drew heavily from Kenyon's writings he made a point of acknowledging him at the front of the book, as he did in "The Name of Jesus". This was years before the plagarism concerns were brought to his attention. If he had meant to plagarize certainly he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of crediting Kenyon in the way that he did. When the oversights were brought to his attention he had them corrected. Now maybe we could talk about Haneggraff's alleged plagarism of Dr. Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion?

For the record, Hagin didn't agree with everything Kenyon taught. Kenyon wasn't even pentecostal for one thing. Also, Kenyon disavowed the error taught in the metaphysical cults, so even if Hagin did agree with everything he taught it still wouldn't make it heresy. Hagin quoted from a number of sources .... Finney, Spurgeon, Moody, Smith Wigglesworth, Martin Luther, F. F. Bosworth .... etc. Kenyon was just one of many authors and preachers he drew from. WOF critics like to overlook these facts because it doesn't fit into their theological conspiracy theories.

The anecdotal evidence of "mooing like cows" or "slithering like snakes" is irrelevant. Most of them come not from the WOF movement but from "revivals" like the ones in Toronto and Pensacola and don't really have anything to do with any particular theology.

It's true that the WOF movement has had many proponents of the "redemption in hell" theory, a theory I reject by the way. But the fact is that many theories on how the process of redemption unfolded have been proposed throughout church history. There is no one accepted orthodox view on this just as there is no one accepted orthodox view on the second coming other than the fact that Jesus is coming back. The main point is that Jesus paid the price for our sins and provided salvation through His substitutionary work. We ought to be able to disagree on the nonessentials here without resorting to charges of heresy.

As for the book of Job, nothing in WOF teaching contradicts what is taught in it. Bible scholars think that the entire story took place in the span of about one year. According to that view, Job was prosperous and healthy for all but one year out of his 200+ years on earth. God gave him twice what he had before. How does that teach that it's God's will for some to be poor and sick? What Job teaches is that God blesses His children, but that times of trial come to us all to test our faith. That's perfectly consistent with WOF teaching, although I realize it's not consistent with what WOF critics accuse WOF people of teaching. This is nothing new. The Apostle Paul said that some people were accusing him of teaching that we should sin more so that God's grace could be manifested more. His response? "Their condemnation is just."

Haneggraff's book is full of misrepresentation of the WOF. He takes people out of context, he uses guilt-by-association and straw man tactics in his arguments, he makes ridiculous leaps in logic such as his assertion that WOF people believe in astral projection and reincarnation, and he elevates nonessentials to the status of essential doctrines so that he can justify accusing those he disagrees with of heresy. His documentation is extensive, to be sure. But you can prove most anything with documentation if your premise is slanted to begin with. I could prove the theory of evolution with documentation if I were so inclined. Zamar is right. Haneggraff's book isn't worth the paper it's written on. He makes a few valid points, but he goes overboard with almost every point he makes and ruins his credibility in the process.

If you want to disagree with WOF teaching that's fine. But at least take the time and make the effort to get the facts before you make that determination. Trust me, you won't get the facts from Haneggraff. You'll get his extremist rhetoric designed to stir up controversy and sell his numerous books and tapes.

-Quad

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

I'm not calling you ignorant. I'm calling those who make assertions based on ignorance ignorant. You had the decency to make your observations on your own personal experience rather than taking somebody else's word for something without getting the facts. I might disagree with you, but I can respect your views more than I can the ones I was addressing.


-Quad

Thank you. I tend to be sensitive to the ignorant comment because I've been attacked in the past by my own family.

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

Quad, I had a long post typed out and lost it during the submission process.

In a very quick nutshell. I've taught on a college campus, yes, what Mr. Hagin did is plagarism and kids get expelled for that behavior. Yes, Mr. Hagin pulled the teachings he liked from various sources. I've never heard anybody claim that his sole source was Kenyon. Yes, now that I'm out, I do see the 'metaphysical cult' source of some of his teachings. Oh, about Mr. Hinn, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, you know the rest.

Oh and you mentioned some of the things going on in WoF churches and didn't think they really pertained to the arguments at hand. I'd strongly argue they do. I witnessed something in the church and without going into much detail, I had such a feeling of evil wash over me and the eyes of the person who it happened to changed. His eyes always looked different to me after the fact although nobody else seemed to see it. I have no doubt some of the things happening in those churches are not of God. But, I do know that WoF churches fall on a spectrum. I believe some are just misguided, some are are pretty out there and some I wouldn't get near with a 1-mile pole.

Anyhow, God bless you Quad.

 

[RevKidd]

I am kind of curious as to why Hank Hannographs opinions mean so much. This guy is one of the most anti Pentecostal that there is. I think that people should really look and search through his bazar theology. I sure dont agree with most of what he says. He is really far off in what he believes. He seems to think it is ok to believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for today.

First, Hank is not a cessationalist... Hank stands firm in the fact that the Bible gives no reason that indicates that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased and are not for today... However, he does believe that they are widely misused according to how Paul taught... and being pentacostal myself... i will agree...

Why do his opinions matter... Because he is consitent. He understands and utilizes proper Biblical hermeneutics...

That is somthing that most WOF's would say is lacking in the movement... One person saying this, another says that, contradictions coming out the wazzoooo.... And Hank is only doing what the word of God says to do, and we should all do. Test all things... Allow scripture to interpret scripture... We cannot develope our modal of Christ, Doctrine & Theology first then find scripture to fit OUR mold. Rather scripture should form the our model of theology & doctrine....

Another wierd doctrine he has is that you have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian. He says that Oneness Pentecostals are a cult.

It's not Hank that established that "wierd doctrine". Read up on the Creed's and you will understand what it takes to be considered "christian". Hank's not the only one that believes this... check out www.carm.org and you will find that they list oneness as a cult... The need to believe in the trinity and the proper nature of Christ, the Father and the Holy spirit is very essential. Once you start to deviate from that you deviate a whole slew of other things...

Personally, I think the word "cult", which when said sounds more like satanism or wiccan, is a little strong with oneness pentacostals... They believe in the trinity, but just don't like to call it that for some stupid reason... Personally I think it's more of a pride issue than anything for them...

He just is not very sound take what you hear from him with a grain of salt would be my advice to anyone who listens to him. This man will and has lead many astray from truth. None of the apostles were trinitarian. They were all oneness. It just saddens me that so many people get caught up into thinking he is a person with discernment. I will pray daily that God opens his eyes. If it was not but by the grace of God I could be the same way.

Not to be harsh but I will take what you have said with a grain of salt... Because it appears that you don't listen to the show. Actually, he has led many to the truth..

 

[Eli'ah]

Let me a Word of Faith believer explain first hand what wof is.... First if you have noticed we are growing, and very fast as I have said before I attend Word Of Faith International Christan Center and we have 23,000 members and growing. My church has been here for 25 years and anything that is healthly grows( kids,trees,knowledge) same goes for my church. As far as the name it claim it, let's dig deeper, did God not say that ask and it will be given unto you seek and ye shall find knock and the door will be opened? He did. Did he not say that in Pslams that he takes pleasure in giving us the desires of our heart? He did. You think we use God Almighty as a vending machine, that is not correct. We believe Him for what we need and some of our wants. I am a decendent of Abraham am I not, did he not propser in all areas of his life? Read Proverbs, did the Lord not say that he wants us to prosper?? and have prosperity? No that just does not just mean money it means in love in life in the home at the job. Jesus wants us to be the head and not the tail, above and not beneath. Blessed coming in and going out in the city and in the field! The same people that that condem WOF teachers are the ones who do not tide and are offended by this! (not all people by some) Then they are others who say the Bishops are greedy, funny that a movie star can make 12 million but when a man of God makes money we call him of the devil?! Others says WOF churches are to big, well don't come to heaven! If your chuch has been around 20 years and still has 100 members that is a problem. WOF churches are blessed and will continue to grow and teach the uncompromising Word Of God.

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

Let me a Word of Faith believer explain first hand what wof is.... First if you have noticed we are growing, and very fast as I have said before I attend Word Of Faith International Christan Center and we have 23,000 members and growing. My church has been here for 25 years and anything that is healthly grows( kids,trees,knowledge) same goes for my church. As far as the name it claim it, let's dig deeper, did God not say that ask and it will be given unto you seek and ye shall find knock and the door will be opened? He did. Did he not say that in Pslams that he takes pleasure in giving us the desires of our heart? He did. You think we use God Almighty as a vending machine, that is not correct. We believe Him for what we need and some of our wants. I am a decendent of Abraham am I not, did he not propser in all areas of his life? Read Proverbs, did the Lord not say that he wants us to prosper?? and have prosperity? No that just does not just mean money it means in love in life in the home at the job. Jesus wants us to be the head and not the tail, above and not beneath. Blessed coming in and going out in the city and in the field! The same people that that condem WOF teachers are the ones who do not tide and are offended by this! (not all people by some) Then they are others who say the Bishops are greedy, funny that a movie star can make 12 million but when a man of God makes money we call him of the devil?! Others says WOF churches are to big, well don't come to heaven! If your chuch has been around 20 years and still has 100 members that is a problem. WOF churches are blessed and will continue to grow and teach the uncompromising Word Of God.

Just a few points here...the Mormon church and Islam are growing by leaps and bounds as well. Churches should grow but simply growing does not necessarily indicate God is blessing that church.

Also, I assume tide=tithe. That's quite a generalization you make and a false one at that. Now, that I am completely away from the WOF teachings, I tithe more and with a glad heart. I tithe and expect ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return. Sure, I would have told you the same years ago, but always at the back of my mind was the thought that the more I'd tithe, the more I'd get in return. People here can say what they want about WOF teachings but there is a dark side. I've seen it first hand. I just ask that everybody read their Bible...not just certain verses but do what I did and really study the Bible and pray, pray, pray. You may be surprised at where God leads you.

 

[QuadraticEquation]

That is somthing that most WOF's would say is lacking in the movement... One person saying this, another says that, contradictions coming out the wazzoooo.... And Hank is only doing what the word of God says to do, and we should all do. Test all things... Allow scripture to interpret scripture... We cannot develope our modal of Christ, Doctrine & Theology first then find scripture to fit OUR mold. Rather scripture should form the our model of theology & doctrine....

I agree that consistency is lacking in the WOF movement. One reason is that it isn't a denomination with a rigid structure and accountability system. This leaves more freedom for ministers to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time it leaves the door open for fanaticism and foolishness. One solution that many in the WOF have found is ministerial associations. By joining one WOF ministers make themselves accountable for their teaching and practices. No solution is perfect, but if given a choice between creating a denomination and maintaining the status quo I'm certain most would stick with the present system. Many WOF ministers came out of denominations where they were harrassed and condemned for teaching on the ministry of the Holy Spirit, healing, faith, and prosperity and they have no desire to return to such an environment.

As for Hanegraaff, I wish he was only doing what the bible says to do. Instead, he resorts to attacking people with whom he disagrees. He takes them out of context, he misrepresents what they teach and believe, he gossips, and he mocks their accents. That's not hermeneutics or apologetics. It's just petty backbiting.

As for the implication that WOF teachers try to make the scriptures fit their theology, I can tell you from experience that my thinking changed as a result of studying the bible along the lines of faith, healing, prosperity, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I was raised Southern Baptist and spent several years in an Assembly of God church prior to reading Kenneth Hagin's books. I had already been quite conditioned to test everything by the Bible so I gave WOF teaching a thorough evaluation. Most of it I agreed with, some of it I didn't. At any rate, I can't conclude as Hanegraaff and others have that it's heresy. WOF teaching doesn't violate any essential doctrines of the Christian faith and it's disingenuous for the critics to assert otherwise.

-Quad

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

[/size][/font]

I agree that consistency is lacking in the WOF movement. One reason is that it isn't a denomination with a rigid structure and accountability system. This leaves more freedom for ministers to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time it leaves the door open for fanaticism and foolishness. One solution that many in the WOF have found is ministerial associations. By joining one WOF ministers make themselves accountable for their teaching and practices. No solution is perfect, but if given a choice between creating a denomination and maintaining the status quo I'm certain most would stick with the present system. Many WOF ministers came out of denominations where they were harrassed and condemned for teaching on the ministry of the Holy Spirit, healing, faith, and prosperity and they have no desire to return to such an environment.

As for Hanegraaff, I wish he was only doing what the bible says to do. Instead, he resorts to attacking people with whom he disagrees. He takes them out of context, he misrepresents what they teach and believe, he gossips, and he mocks their accents. That's not hermeneutics or apologetics. It's just petty backbiting.

As for the implication that WOF teachers try to make the scriptures fit their theology, I can tell you from experience that my thinking changed as a result of studying the bible along the lines of faith, healing, prosperity, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I was raised Southern Baptist and spent several years in an Assembly of God church prior to reading Kenneth Hagin's books. I had already been quite conditioned to test everything by the Bible so I gave WOF teaching a thorough evaluation. Most of it I agreed with, some of it I didn't. At any rate, I can't conclude as Hanegraaff and others have that it's heresy. WOF teaching doesn't violate any essential doctrines of the Christian faith and it's disingenuous for the critics to assert otherwise.

-Quad

I'd be interested in hearing where you think Mr. Hanegraaff has gone wrong. I just read his book and while I may not have agreed with all of it, based on my own experiences, a lot of it was right on. I would really be interested in taking this one issue at a time and if I've found that issue to be wrong, believe me, I'll admit it.

 

[Asaph]

I'd be interested in hearing where you think Mr. Hanegraaff has gone wrong. I just read his book and while I may not have agreed with all of it, based on my own experiences, a lot of it was right on. I would really be interested in taking this one issue at a time and if I've found that issue to be wrong, believe me, I'll admit it.

Hi OG,

I somewhat consider myself WoF with solid scriptural support that is and I just happen to have an autographed first printing edition of HH's Christianity in Crisis! It has been a great help for me in developing the gift of faith I have been given. I have found that his documentation is sound and it has helped me to understand that there are some very high profile proponents of WoF that are very immature in their understanding of sound biblical study principles.

I do however, believe that the word of faith movement is/was a move of God to get His children back into a vibrant living relationship with Him. If you look at twentieth century churches they had really gotten some serious boxes around what they called Christianity and I think God wants to shake that.

IMO Hank is a little more than "too stiff" in his assessment, but I also believe that he is a good man of God and one of my beloved brothers in Christ.

I think both sides of that spat could use a revelation of the Grace we so wonderfully and awesomely enjoy.

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

 

[QuadraticEquation]

I'd be interested in hearing where you think Mr. Hanegraaff has gone wrong. I just read his book and while I may not have agreed with all of it, based on my own experiences, a lot of it was right on. I would really be interested in taking this one issue at a time and if I've found that issue to be wrong, believe me, I'll admit it.

I've already discussed much of this in earlier posts.

Hanegraaff claims that E. W. Kenyon is the real father of the faith movement. He takes that from a book entitled "A Different Gospel" by Dan McConnell. E. W. Kenyon was not the father of the faith movement. In fact, he wasn't even pentecostal. The father of the faith movement was Kenneth Hagin. He's the one who built Rhema Bible Training Center. He's the one who conducted all faiths crusades, seminars, and campmeetings where he taught on the subjects of faith and healing. He's the one who wrote over a hundred books on faith, printed 65 million, and had them translated into 49 languages. Hagin drew his teaching from a number of sources including Smith Wigglesworth, F. F. Bosworth, Finis Jennings Dake, and Kenyon. But he also shared from his personal insights, many of which came about through endless hours of study and prayer. The only reason critics like Hanegraaff and McConnell want to make Kenyon the real father of the faith movement is that they believe they can link him to metaphysical cults like Christian Science. It's the guilt by association attack at work, which is considered a poor approach to debate.

Hanegraaff also claimed that faith people teach that you're not supposed to have faith in God, but faith in your faith. This was taken from one booklet written by Hagin addressing a particular topic. Hagin was saying that God wants everybody to develop their own faith rather than always getting people to pray for them and relying on the faith of others. He said that "your faith will work for you just as good as mine does. Have confidence that your faith will work. Have faith in your faith." He wasn't saying that we should have faith in our faith as opposed to having faith in God. He was saying that we should quit relying on other people's faith and develop our own faith. Hanegraaff took that statement completely out of context in order to build his case of heresy against Hagin.

Hanegraaff also claimed that faith people believe in reincarnation. He based this on Hagin's statement that the new birth is as much of an incarnation as when Jesus was born. What Hagin was saying was simply that the Holy Spirit comes to live in the believer upon being born again, and the Holy Spirit is just as much God as Jesus is. Therefore, if God the Holy Spirit comes to live in human flesh it's by definition an incarnation. That doesn't mean that it's the same as THE incarnation which only occurred once when God became a man. It simply means that God lives in us and we should be aware of His presence. Hanegraaff was trying to say that this teaching would mean that every time God comes to live in one of His children would be a new incarnation and therefore multiple incarnations would mean reincarnations. Absolutely absurd analysis. Faith people don't believe or teach reincarnation in any way other than the fact that every time somebody is born again God comes to live in human flesh.

I could give you many more examples of misrepresentations, distortions ... etc. The bottom line here is that Hanegraaff is using tactics that reduce his credibility. Rather than honestly present what faith people believe and teach and then refuting it from the scriptures he twists their words to try and catch them in some form of heresy. These tactics have led many of his former supporters to distance themselves from him. If you'll do a keyword search on Hank Hanegraaff you'll find some interesting stuff like Dr. D. James Kennedy's claim that Hanegraaff plagarized his Evangelism Explosion material and allegations of financial misconduct from former associates and Dr. Walter Martin's widow's claim that Hanegraaff assumed the leadership of the Christian Research Institute under false pretenses. Try the cultlink site, or the christiannews site.

-Quad

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I have moved this thead from another forum. It will be re-opened shortly.

Dids