Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Gup20, Feb 23, 2006.
Is the Word of Faith demonimation based on the Word, and do they live by Faith?
neither - they believe that faith is a force that will move God on their behalf by quoting applicable verses over and over and over again [which is the "energy" to make "the force" "work" for you]. Sort of like God is a giant vending machine and you put faith in the "coin" slot and push which item [healing, prosperity ($$$), deliverance, friends, a good marriage, etc] you want.
btw, word of faith doctrine does not believe that Jesus is God, but "a" god.
I would say that it polutes the mind to thinking about self rather than God. Making the self be of superhuman(god like) form. Some students in my bible college used to teach this stuff right in the middle of class ... the professor handled it a lot better than I did. The book by Macarthur is a great read. BTW ... I spent over 18 months in a charismatic/WOF church before I realized how much it contridicted scripture.
Not based on the Word, but based on a distortion of the word. God is not central. Humans are.
WofF does have faith however! It's misplaced of course -- but faith still. Faith that God will do what an individual tells Him to do if he/she just believes it enough. *shudder*
Convicted -- I'm glad you were hummmm convicted!
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
2Co 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
Well.... whats the problem with living by faith?
**My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.
BTW, I know God is not a "great vending machine", but I do know in Psalm 37:4 it says,
Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.
Would there be something wrong for a Christian wanting a wonderful marriage, friends that can be trusted, be finacially sound, and delivered from anything that would hinder a closer walk with the LORD? I don't see any where in the bible that says God wants us to be a bum begging for bread on the contrary David wrote....
Psa 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
You're referring to the Word of Faith movement. It's not a demonination. It's a philosophical movement. Also known as word faith, prosperity gospel, name it and claim it, blam it and grab it, etc.
It should not be confused with the scriptural word of faith belief of asking and receiving (which, scripturally, has its limitations and caveats). The two are completely different.
I would advise you to read Hebrews 11. An excerpt is presented below.
Hebrews 11:13-16; 32-40
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
32And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 [They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
My view of the word-faith heresy is reproduced above.
You're referring to the Word of Faith movement. It's not a demonination. It's a philosophical movement. Also known as word faith, prosperity gospel, name it and claim it, blam it and grab it, etc.
It should not be confused with the scriptural word of faith belief of asking and receiving (which, scripturally, has its limitations and caveats). The two are completely different. </font>[/QUOTE]"Blam it and grab it?"
I had NO IDEA that Emeril was into w.o.f.
Oops, I meant "blab it and grab it"
Never trust a skinny chef
If I pray for a van and go around confessing that I'm gonna get a van. It will be that I will use it for the Lord (ie I will be taking people to church and on weekends it would be used to minister to people on the lake and to get supplies to fellow firefighter during a fire. To me asking for and claiming a van would be using the word of faith in the right way and calling those things which are not as though they were. I can stand in the driveway and call my old Ford a van all I want and its not going to materialize(sp?) but my Heavenly Father knows what I have need of so in the mean time I'll wait on Him. He will give me a job that will help me earn the money or send a person by who has a van that will trade with me for my ole Ford car (Hopefully it'll be another Ford. )
I think what ya'll are saying with WOF'ers is thay just ask for things that are not to help others but to build themselfs up and they don't have to work for it or give up something? Like wanting a Corvette....how many people can you haul to church in a Vette? 2? 4 if you throw 2 more in the trunk Hey put a ball hitch on tha back and pull a trailor full of 'em? LOL
I think its a deal(for lack of a better word) where you have to have your priorities straight and the right motives behind getting the house (are you going to help the homeless), car (are you going to get people to church and for transportation to your work so you can make more tithe money? *grin *wink*), beautiful or handsome spouse depending on your gender (because she'll or he'll be a good spouse and you acually love them or is it because they'll look good on your arm?), ect ect. The motives behind what you ask the Lord for really ought to be concidered.
Here's something I wrote earlier (NB: 'WoF' is there referred to as 'Right-wing' or 'the Right'):
"On the issue of soteriology, the Right-wing has much to commend itself. Many churches nowadays fail adequately to teach all the implications of salvation and imputed righteousness, which can lead Christians to regard themselves as less than satisfactory in the eyes of God. I personally have come across many Christians who feel inadequate vis a vis God and have no real concept of their being adopted into His Sonship in all its fullness nor the spiritual blessings that that knowledge produces. Too many people in the Church see themselves as little better than worms in the eyes of the Lord and, as such, are scarcely envisioned, still less empowered to fulfil their vocation and potential in Christ.
Flowing from this, there is a dangerous kind of false humility, which if exaggerated can lead Christians into a type of spiritual self-flagellation. There are some Christians who regard it as a blessing to be poor and to suffer (the attitude has been summed up by the phrase ‘Poverty equals Piety’) because they deserve it as a result of their fallen state; they will suffer punishment in this life so that they can receive everlasting reward in the next, having thus been purged of their sin; a kind of ‘purgatory on earth’. I would of course distinguish such Christians from those who may believe that God has called them to be poor (for example, to be a witness among the poor), etc; later on I shall be looking at whether Christians can have a vocation to suffer or to be poor. What I would say here is that I think it profoundly theologically flawed for a Christian to believe that s/he can be saved, made more holy or cleansed of his/her sin through suffering, illness or poverty, as that really drives a coach and horses through the whole point of the crucifixion; it is still more perverse for Christians to actively seek out suffering in some form of martyr-complex.
The Right-wing view supplies the antidote to this in that it provides a well rounded and fully developed soteriology that should form a fundamental part of the foundational teaching involved in Christian conversion-initiation; the ‘Normal Christian Birth’ as David Pawson would put it. We are redeemed from the curse of the Fall and cleansed of our sin, declared righteous, holy and perfect in God’s eyes by the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross; we appropriate the effects of this by faith and repentance enabling us to enjoy the privilege of fullness of relationship with Him. Christians need to know that they are special to God and that He cares about them rather than merely putting up with them.
As far as healing is concerned, the Right-wing certainly has much to say to the Church on the matter of faith on this point, particularly in the secularised, materialist West. Western Christians tend to have very little expectation that God can act in a supernatural manner and this is the case on the issue of healing. The Right-wing both raises our awareness that God heals supernaturally and increases our level of expectation that He will heal.
Furthermore, although critics point out that the Right is perhaps overly-obsessed with the issue of money, it is fair to point out that its teachings (as we shall see) originate largely in that most capitalistic of countries, the USA. In that country and, to a lesser extent, in other developed countries there is a need for teaching on stewardship of money, wealth creation and wealth management and the Right-wing, despite its faults and errors does to a degree supply that need. For example, in our consumer-credit-driven age, we would do well to remember the maxim “The borrower is servant to the lender.” There is also a need for generosity from Christians, and therefore, provided it is not applied purely materialistically and provided that it does not engender greed as a motive, the principle of sowing and reaping has a role to play.
Following on from the above financial point, the Right-wing also supplies a healthy and welcome tonic to the attitude prevalent in this country that “poverty equals piety”; that Christians should be poor and that there is no Good News for the rich. Many churches in this country use this maxim as an excuse to pay their ministers dreadfully low wages for doing what is or should be, after all, a professional and vocational job. Jeff Lucas, a leading light of the Pioneer house church network in the UK, recalls an incident that illustrates this point: “During an induction service for a new minister, one of the deacons stood to his feet and prayed, ‘Lord, you keep this man humble; we’ll keep him poor!’”
Another interesting point that needs to be made is that for many of its adherents, particularly its exponents, Prosperity Theology does seem to work; the publications of the ‘Faith-Word’ movement, for example the Copelands’ Believers’ Voice of Victory are full of accounts of financial success and miraculous healing resulting from following its precepts. Yongghi-Cho now has the largest church congregation in the world. It is fair to say indeed that in many cases the Copelands et al are simply sharing with others what has worked for them; in this sense the publications are similar to other self-help journals. In the next chapter I shall touch on the danger of relying on this ‘testimony theology’ but I do find the apparent success of the teaching noteworthy.
Finally, Right-wing theology, provided it is used in its moderate form, does reaffirm the concern of God for every aspect of our being, including our finances and health. In its proper context, it can result in an attitude of looking humbly to God for provision and of giving thanks to Him for all that we have and can thus create a powerful counter-culture to the World’s ideas of wealth-accumulation by placing God firmly at the centre of our lives and interacting with us at every point and by teaching believers to reference all that they do to and through Him; this is greatly needed in Western Christendom where we are far too imbued with the World’s values.
Drawbacks of the right-wing
In contrast to that last comment above, extrapolation of the Right-wing, that is taking it to its logical conclusion, reduces the Christian faith to being formulaic and mechanistic – “if I do A then B will happen”; it turns Man into a god and God into Man’s servant – “if I do A then God must (because His Word says so) do B”. Thus God’s sovereignty is fettered: “If you’re sitting around waiting for Jesus to decide to heal you…for Jesus to decide to help you…for Jesus to decide to prosper you and give you victory…you’re in for a long wait. Because that’s not Jesus’ decision. It’s yours!”. Christianity becomes less a matter of relationship with a Divine Person but rather a case of obeying a set of rules (back to the Law almost); those on the Right-wing tend to be very much ‘into’ the Word at the expense of its author. In the words of Tony Campolo, the American sociologist and spiritual adviser to President Clinton, they “have faith in faith” rather than in God. God is no longer centre stage but merely an actor who plays according to a script (admittedly a script that He has written Himself). I have heard many Christians on the Right talk about their faith in “The Word” but not much about God; when He is mentioned, it is usually in the context of “God has blessed me greatly this month”, and it is as if they are talking about Him in abstract terms - they might just as well say “The weather has been good today!” There is an element of magic about it all; indeed it seems to be the case that those on the extreme fringe of the Right-wing espouse what appears to be a form of neo-Gnosticism, in that they would hold that this is some kind of secret knowledge, not so much of God but rather of the workings of God, and that those who have discovered it are in a privileged position compared with the lumpenproletariat of Christendom.
The implications of this teaching also give rise for concern. If it is the case that if you play by the rules and press all the right switches you will be blessed with prosperity and good health then it must surely follow that those who are not thus blessed must have somehow got it wrong; if you are a financially poor Christian then you must also be spiritually poor. What are the Right to make of people who have prayed for healing, but are still sick? What do they say about Joni Eareckson Tada, a woman of great faith but also great disability? “Suppose after putting your faith in the Lord you still have that arthritis or cancer? What then? Does it mean you haven’t prayed hard enough? Does it mean something is wrong with your faith? And isn’t it, finally, a form of Pelagianism – a way of thinking that God can be bought if you can ante up sufficient personal effort? That attitude, you must remember, was the one the Reformers attacked the most strongly. The proper Christian emphasis is not on our efforts, our abilities, or even our faith. It is on our faith in God.”
In this way, Prosperity Theology is a form of Social Darwinism: “moving a step beyond Darwin…success and failure are now correlated with the moral worth of individuals as well. Not only are the fittest successful, they are morally superior, the ones most fit to control society’s power and wealth. The losers are not only poor and powerless, they are morally suspect, not fit to rule or to make proper use of society’s wealth.” This can make poor or unwell Christians feel terribly inadequate, guilty and pressurised, when they have enough to cope with as it is; surely it is far more ‘Christian’ to offer practical help and compassion to our brothers and sisters rather than to stand back and preach at them from our moral high ground about how wrong they are? Campolo: “ Many Christians have twisted the Judeo-Christian message to mean that wealth is evidence of superior spiritual stature. Some Christians make the amount of money a person possesses a means of judging his relationship with God, pointing out that when the ancient Jews were right with God, they enjoyed such an abundance of things that their cups were full and overflowing. They say that if we keep the Law of God, particularly his command to tithe one tenth of our income to the work of the church, the Lord will prosper us beyond our imagination. Such claims are made in spite of the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in the Third World nations who love the Lord, obey his Law, faithfully tithe, and yet suffer privation beyond our comprehension. Many Christians subconsciously believe that God must be in league with the rich person.”
Indeed, this teaching has the potential to produce a triumphalist attitude and a lack of compassion – effectively there is a danger of a ‘Gospel of Greed’ developing from it; indeed I have noticed that many on the Right-wing are unsympathetic towards the poor and sick, particularly if they happen to be Christians who are thus afflicted – there seems to be the implication that it is somehow the sufferer’s fault (having said that I have also known many Right-wingers to be very generous towards those in need – although whether that is out of genuine compassion or because they are ‘sowing’ so they can ‘reap’ is difficult to say). “Such a belief system can create an arrogance in the wealthy, causing them to look upon the less fortunate with contempt…This implies that people are poor because they are lazy and wasteful; when the truth may be that poverty is the result of discrimination and economic exploitation. The poor often find themselves the victims of social injustice and psychological oppression by a society that equates their poverty with God’s disfavor (sic).”
The ramifications of all this have tremendous consequences for Third World Christians, firstly in the attitude that the Right-wing has towards their brothers and sisters in Christ in less affluent nations, and secondly in the impact the Prosperity Gospel has in converting the poor and sick within those countries. I have been particularly concerned at the massive growth in charismatic (mainly Pentecostal) Christianity in Latin America, especially Brazil – not, I hasten to add, because I have anything against charismatics (far from it!), but because the Gospel preached there is, by and large, rooted in prosperity teaching. I suspect that most of these new Pentecostals, many of whom ten to twenty years ago were equally enamoured of Liberation Theology and have now found that to be wanting, have been ‘converted’ on the promise of riches and good health. I would question the soundness of their conversion and I dread to think what will happen to their faith when the promised wealth fails to materialise for most of them. This demonstrates the danger of hanging the Gospel on a mere doctrinal point rather than the Person of Jesus Christ; if the particular brand of teaching is discredited then so is the Gospel for those Christians.
With specific reference to the Copelands (et al), the definition of faith expounded by Kenneth Copeland is simply theologically incorrect. The word used in Hebrews 11:1 to describe what faith is, hypostasis, literally means ‘substance’, but it has connotations of ‘state of thinking’ and is used in the New Testament to mean ‘assurance’ or ‘certainty’ and refers to an attitude of heart or mind rather than a substance or force having an independent existence (cf. Hebrews 3:14, where translation of hypostasis as ‘force’ does not fit). “…In the context of Hebrews 11:1 [hypostasis] means “an assured impression, a mental realizing”. Far from being some tangible material or energetic force, faith is a channel of living trust stretching from man to God.” Other translators more qualified than Copeland – Biblical compilers – render hypostasis thus: “being sure” (NIV), “to be sure” (TEV) and “assurance” (NASB). With Kenneth Copeland’s definition of faith/hypostasis, we are back to ‘Star Wars’ and ‘The Force’; an impersonal power that exists independently and has no need of a deity, thus eliminating man’s dependence on God – who needs God when you have faith? This takes me full circle back to my original criticism – that ‘Faith-Word’ theology is mechanistic and founded on formula rather than relationship.
Kenneth Copeland’s view of ‘covenant’ (etc.) is also flawed. It rests on the premise that God and man are somehow equal and that God needs man’s permission and co-operation to intervene in history. It is of course obvious that man does not possess that equality of bargaining power. “As his comments indicate, Copeland views divine covenants no differently from business contracts. They are benefit-oriented, not relationship-oriented. They are formed by mutual agreement (for mutual benefit) through negotiation, as opposed to being initiated by the stronger party offering non-negotiable help (not of necessity but of grace) – which is the traditional Christian understanding of God’s covenants. They focus on the fulfilment of certain terms (performance) rather than personal loyalty.”
As for poverty being a curse, I am not sure what the Copelands would make of the Matthew 5 beatitudes – “Blessed are the poor” – unless they want to purely spiritualise that statement, following perhaps the Matthean account of the Beatitudes, but that would be extremely inconsistent with their policy of interpreting Biblical statements in a principally materialistic manner. On the point of debt, apart from the dubious practice of interpreting the various Old Testament passages in a literal, materialist way, there is their questionable view of Rom. 13:8. Optheilime, translated ‘debt’ here, is also used in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 13:4 to mean wrongdoing(‘Forgive us our debts’). It connotes a sense of moral obligation, of owing someone a favour (hence ‘owe no man anything except love’) or sin requiring forgiveness more than financial indebtedness (Luke 11; Rom 4:4). The case for this verse prohibiting debt/ mortgages is therefore far from made out. Indeed, overarching this entire area is the principle of sound stewardship as laid down, inter alia, in the Parable of the Talents. In this country, it is actually less wasteful and more economic to buy via a mortgage in terms of monthly outgoings rather than to rent.
On the subject of ‘sowing’ and ‘reaping’, the materialistic interpretation of this again gives cause for concern. To say, for example, that the parable of the sower is about money is but one of perhaps several possible interpretations of those passages (I have always thought it was about preaching the Gospel and the growth of the Church through conversion), or an interpretation that is only of relevance in certain circumstances. To be fair though, in his discourses on sowing and reaping in 2 Corinthians 9 and 10, Paul is talking about finances and this fact cannot and should not be ignored. I am however concerned that teaching of this nature could give rise to selfish motives on the part of the giver – how can you say that you are giving out of generosity if you are giving with a belief that you will get more back? The Prosperity Gospel encourages an attitude of selfish wealth accumulation under the guise of the blessing of God. In short, in the words of Jeff Lucas, “greed becomes a creed”. There is also a suspicion that at least some of the ‘Faith-Word’ proponents are putting forward this teaching for their own ends, particularly in the light of the scandals that dogged the TV evangelists in the 1980s; one would be inclined to be a little less cynical about some Prosperity teachers if they did not couple their doctrine of ‘sowing and reaping’ with television appeals for cash for themselves – I would take those individuals more seriously if they were altruistic and suggested we might like to ‘sow’ by contributing towards relieving Third World poverty rather than towards a better church building and television studio etc. for their ministries. It is also noteworthy on that last point that many on the Right seem to have ministries named after themselves which generates the impression if not the reality that these are self-appointed individuals with no kind of spiritual authority over them, accountable to no-one save themselves.
There is a further point to be made here: in many ways, I see the more extreme views on the Right as being a reflection of modern Western culture and products of consumerism. We live in an age and in societies where we are given certain expectations about our lives and how they should be. Advances in medicine have ensured that we live far longer and experience far less in the way of physical suffering than our ancestors; this has in turn produced an expectation of good health and long life and we have by and large lost the immediacy of experience of death and to an extent the familiarity and fear which went with this (although if we are honest, most of us still fear death deep down but expect it to be far off). Interestingly, many people see good health as a ‘God-given right’. One hundred years ago it was not uncommon for people to die young and, whilst no less tragic than today, it was accepted; nowadays, an early death is seen as an injustice to be fought against. I see a similar pattern with regard to wealth; we are surrounded by advertising, which promises the earth, and, again, we see it as a God-given right to have it. I suspect that the ‘Faith-Word’ movement has absorbed a lot of this attitude (see Chapter 3 for an expansion of this point).
To sum up, the cardinal error of the ‘Faith-Word Movement’ is in interpreting what are principally spiritual promises and blessings as to be manifested primarily in a material fashion. It seems more akin to magic than to Christianity. Similarly, Yongghi-Cho’s ‘visualisation’ technique has its echoes in oriental shamanistic practices (as he himself concedes); although this can perhaps be explained away as a ‘Godly version of a Satanic counterfeit’, it nevertheless advertises itself with a large sign bearing the words “approach with caution”. The disquieting aspects of this movement do not hold up well against such Scriptures as 1 Tim. 6:1-7.
As for the ‘triumphalist’ nature of some of the other proponents of the Right, there is certainly nothing wrong in embracing a triumphalist soteriology; indeed, I have indicated already that one of the faults with a lot of modern teaching is its failure to emphasise the triumph of the Cross and its implications for believers. I become concerned however when this is interpreted in a predominantly materialistic manner, with an unhealthy over-emphasis on control by the Christian of his or her circumstances; this to me is just Positive Thinking with a Christian veneer. There is also the danger of confusing salvation (‘crisis) with sanctification (‘process’) and of claiming eschatological promises to be present realities (freedom from sickness, suffering and poverty). Josh McDowell, an evangelical commentator very strong on triumphalist soteriology, if you like, with plenty of emphasis in his writings on our new identity and life in Christ and on the power of faith, nevertheless sounds an important note of caution which, coming from him, carries a lot of weight and is that much more devastating: “One final word. Some teach that Christians can avoid pain, discomfort, and disease by simply “having enough faith.” Nothing could be further from the truth of the Gospel than this. We are taught that we can make some kind of “claim” on God. This action of claiming becomes a matter of rigid formulas, and constitutes what in reality is a new legalism. Those who espouse such views would obligate God to jump through their faddish hoops. One or two passages of Scripture, brutally pried out of context, are used to support these contentions. But even a cursory look at the men and women of the Bible indicates that, by and large, they were not men and women free from life’s trials, or who were what we would commonly regard as “successful”…No, I am not saying that God cannot heal, provide financial benefits, or perform miracles. He does, and He can. What I am saying is that we must acknowledge that God is sovereign in all circumstances…He may from time to time grant miraculous healings, blessings, or deliverance; but the reason these miracles occur in some people’s lives and not others is known to God alone.”"
[ETA - for some reason the footnotes on my original giving attributes for the quotes don't translate across onto this Board , but the Copeland quotes IIRC come from various publications of the Believer's Voice of Victory, Jeff Lucas' comes from his book Sweet and Sour Pork , Campolo's I think are from his Partly Right and the comment on Social Darwinism comes from Charles L Kammer's Liberation Theology IIRC. And I can't remember which Josh McDowell book it was. Sorry, Josh.]
[ February 24, 2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
I appreciated your thoughts, a sort of skimmed through it, to be honest - I am well aware of the intellectual view of WoF [wolf as I like to call it - you know Jesus said, "I send you out among wolves . . ." ]
anyway - getting to my point - briefly, WofF is a cult, false basic theology. They do not believe that Jesus is God. EVERYTHING that they teach is contaminated. Sort of like they need huge warning signs:
BEWARE ---- It's a trap
WARNING ---- May cause death
DANGER ---- undertow
ALERT ---- wolves in sheep's clothing
ps: if a Christian feels unworthy and has low self esteem - they need to read THE BOOK. A steady diet of God's Word WILL show them the truth. It's not the church's responsibility to rev up some kind of personal self esteem program. All you get from books, is pressed between the pages like a leaf [dry and crunchy] - all you get from programs is programmed
Are you kidding? The Beatitudes are the most wonderful words of lifting up a person's self esteem that I've ever read. True, this shouldn't be the church's primary or only goal, but it should not be absent in the church, any more than feeding the hungry and clothing the naked should be absent. Scripture is full of passages that are meant to esteem a person highly in a Godly manner.
Are you kidding? The Beatitudes are the most wonderful words of lifting up a person's self esteem that I've ever read. True, this shouldn't be the church's primary or only goal, but it should not be absent in the church, any more than feeding the hungry and clothing the naked should be absent. Scripture is full of passages that are meant to esteem a person highly in a Godly manner. </font>[/QUOTE]originally stated by eloidalmanutha:
"If a Christian feels unworthy and has low self esteem - they need to read THE BOOK. A steady diet of God's Word WILL show them the truth."
repeat: You don't need church to rev up a program - all you need is JESUS and His Word.
Many people need more because they cannot or will not apply themselves to His Word . . . then go to church.
I cannot speak to the errors or false doctrine of everyone else who claims to be a part of Christendom. But it does seem to me that every pastor or denomination someone says is fine and orthodox, there will always be nay sayers who will find something wrong with a denomination or a high profile Christian personality.
I wonder how Baptist/Presbyterian types like it when other Christians say that eternal security is 'a license to sin' for Christians and that these denominations teach antinomianism? Just get saved and then all your future sins are under the blood.
Just understand while you are criticizing every other denomination or Christian leader, someone also has you in the cross-hairs.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-2 the degree that we criticise and judge others, is the same method He will use on us at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
It's not a matter of "naysayers". I will repeat:
Word of Faith DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS GOD.
that makes it another gospel - it does not matter how many people think it's good, or feel that it's good, or may sound like it has truth, or have dramatic results to "prove" that it is truth. It is NOT built on the Rock = Jesus Christ, the Son of God made manifest in the flesh. That makes it a cult.
You totally did not address my three paragraphs. You merely repeated you dislike for the Word of Faith people because of what they allegedly believe.
Don't just skip over what I have said if you are merely going to restate what I have written.
Try to dialogue with me. What part of my post do you agree with; and what part do you disagree with as to what I have said in my three paragraphs?
Merely repeating your view of, what you say Word of Faith believes, does not bring about learning and understanding.
I tried to explain this on the Osteen thread, but maybe you didn't read it. It's not a question of motive or getting something for yourself, it's that WF teaches that you can get God to give you things by practicing certain techniques. These techniques, as I pointed out, are from the occult. The Bible does not teach us to magically say things in order to get them, or to repeat something over and over so that it will happen.
Also, whenever we ask for something from the Lord, it is to be according to His will. The WF teachers do not teach this. God's will is irrelevant to them, or they make it so that His will is your will. What they teach is a form of occult magic -- using your mind, the power of your will, and your words to manipulate reality and activate "hidden" spiritual laws. Copeland has referred to this several times. He teaches that there are hidden spiritual laws, but once you know them, you can manipulate them to bring about what you want. He doesn't use the word "manipulate," but that's what he's saying. Charles Capps says the same thing, as do many other WF teachers.
In addition to the above problems, they teach a false doctrine about God, Jesus, and man. They hit just about every essential doctrine wrong.
Ray Berrian, do you believe it is biblical that:
1. Jesus became God when he was baptized but was not God before?
2. God has a body?
3. There are hidden spiritual laws we can manipulate to get what we want through certain techniques?
4. Man is a little god?
5. Jesus had to go to hell to fight Satan in order to atone for sins?
6. We should not pray according to God's will?
7. If you are sick or poor, it's because you lack faith?
8. If you repeat something over and over, you will get it?
Are these things biblical?