There's "e v e 21 -ism".sects (=denominations, calvins, free willers, *name-your-own) do not.
there’s “blessedAnomaly-ism”There's "e v e 21 -ism".
At least what I teach is believed by many out there. I may not completely fall into a denomination, but rather see truth in many and hold belief in a slightly more eclectic manner. My essentials are the essentials of the Christian church.there’s “blessedAnomaly-ism”
Ted how do you know it's not this....Jesus said if ones won't receive your words shake the dust off your feet and move on? Why circle the wagons over and over and over again talking about the same material when they can go on to new people? Very presumptuous to say something is dead because all you hear is crickets. Seems like you miss all the people of whom you disagree with. Maybe you're feeling like Tom Hanks in the movie "Cast Away"? Or maybe like the man in the Twilight Zone, "The Lonely"??? You can get the radio show of that on You Tube a great story and then maybe you can tell us if that's what you're feeling.
When was "outlast[ing] the faithless [sic] critics" ever a thing? Who made that the standard for this forum?I think you miss the meaning of Ted's post... WOF in this forum thought they could outlast the faithless critics. Ted posts that to remind them that they lost...
My wife would put Dollar and Cope on the TV, and I would laugh at some of their offerings. She would get mad at me. They always knew more because, well, I guess they had a TV show and I didn't. It's the same position she took with our WoF pastor. I left each service dismantling his sermon, and she would get mad at me. He had a local TV show and would appear on TBN, Daystar and once on CBN's Pat Robertson show. So, I guess, he was smarter. Until we were one of three picked to be on that Pat Robertson show (via an into video for pastor) and she mentioned to him "Anything to help you out a bit." He responded: "Oh, I don't need your help. I'm ok." She lost trust in him that day.Personally, I don't care if they ever come back. I use this forum as my own playground as well as occasionally posting about the unrepentant doctrines of the movement. I don't mind saying that this forum has caused many WOF to leave the movement and others to modify their doctrines knowing what has been and is being taught is wrong.
When was "outlast[ing] the faithless [sic] critics" ever a thing? Who made that the standard for this forum?
My wife would put Dollar and Cope on the TV, and I would laugh at some of their offerings. She would get mad at me. They always knew more because, well, I guess they had a TV show and I didn't. It's the same position she took with our WoF pastor. I left each service dismantling his sermon, and she would get mad at me. He had a local TV show and would appear on TBN, Daystar and once on CBN's Pat Robertson show. So, I guess, he was smarter. Until we were one of three picked to be on that Pat Robertson show (via an into video for pastor) and she mentioned to him "Anything to help you out a bit." He responded: "Oh, I don't need your help. I'm ok." She lost trust in him that day.
But she never transferred my truths about him over to the TV preachers. Then she found Andrew Wommack and that cost her her life.
I was never fully WoF, but I shouldered up to them for a while - critical, but still listening. They wore on me over time. I'm sure that this forum gave me food for thought. I'm certain of that.
I don't think you have any basis to say "manythe movement" because of CARM. Perhaps you know of one. I know of none. I know of a couple who moved on and returned elsewhere for a post or two.
As for "modify[ing] their doctrines," well, I hope so. Everyone should be modifying their doctrines. You have, at least in eschatology doctrines. We all have, hopefully. Because, IMHO, nobody is completely right. Nobody is without flaw in their doctrines. And no church or denomination has it 100% correct. They are all led by men, and men are flawed.
I'm convinced that my earlier flaw, when I shouldered up to WoF, was that I assumed that I had to be in a "denomination." Something organized as such. But I've learned that trying to be in a denomination or a movement only makes you subject to that groups errors, for you feel you have to accept, espouse and preach the whole line of teaching that they teach. Oh, and everyone will say "no, I teach the Bible; I learn from the Bible; if my leader contradicts the Bible, the Bible wins." But then I see these same people finding reason to hunker down under the very teaching that was questioned and becoming one of "them," thinking that this is following Christ. As opposed to one in Christ.
In that, I think that most of the people I have met here at CARM -- most, there are a few exceptions -- truly have a heart for Christ. But they have, as we all do, flaws in how to actually get under his wing. We are all flawed, especially anyone who would intone "I'm better than that group." If one really thinks they have taken care of the log.... guess again.
Matthew 7:4-5aOr how can you say[e] to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own?
5 You hypocrite!
And I yours. Most choose a "position/denomination/movement." I gave up on that, realizing that everyone is wrong somewhere. I gave up on that, realizing that I will never find complete understanding of God's Word from a group, but rather will only gain understanding of that group, and indoctrination into that group.I appreciate your comments. And I agree that none of us has a perfect understanding of God's word. I am of the opinion that there are groups that are egregiously wrong and must be confronted. I am convinced that the Reformed have the best overall understanding of scripture. And perhaps, that has caused "silent" pride in their hearts.
I've been saying something similar for decades, only to be rejected over and over by wof and others in this forum.From all this, if we draw a Venn diagram of all Christian beliefs, that place where they all overlap (somewhere in there is where the essential beliefs reside), then we might have found the least wrong and likely most correct teachings. It's a good starting place, eh?
I'm fairly certain I've always agreed with this sentiment. Why would WoF reject it? On what tenant?I've been saying something similar for decades, only to be rejected over and over by wof and others in this forum.
Here's my position:
If we take the Creeds, Confessions and Articles of Faith from the Christian church, where they agree and intersect you find the essentials of the faith. The rest is where nonessential and sectarian beliefs are found.
For instance, baptism is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. The mode of baptism is sectarian. Sprinkle, dunk, pour..., babies, kids and adults..., are sectarian areas and nonessential doctrines.
im grateful He is not eclectic... since His reality and essentials are not eclectic.At least what I teach is believed by many out there. I may not completely fall into a denomination, but rather see truth in many and hold belief in a slightly more eclectic manner. My essentials are the essentials of the Christian church.
You are the only one of perhaps a handful that believe what you have shown here. You espouse cultic behaviors.
Yeah...I apologize. I know y'all miss me. There's no one else force you to pretend that WoF is dead. I've had major disruptions happen since the beginning of a prolonged fast. Long story short, the local Christian school needs a bus driver, and I've been working on my CDL for over a month. The process has roadblocks, and I could use your prayrers.And no substantial wof posts, and more importantly, no wofist. Just dried out wof bones getting kicked around for another month. Wof is dead.
This is just critic's arrogance, Joe. Some left because the critics are obnoxious, and they moved on. There is not point to redundancy when your critique is static and recalcitrant.I think you miss the meaning of Ted's post... WOF in this forum thought they could outlast the faithless critics. Ted posts that to remind them that they lost...
Personally, I don't care if they ever come back. I use this forum as my own playground as well as occasionally posting about the unrepentant doctrines of the movement. I don't mind saying that this forum has caused many WOF to leave the movement and others to modify their doctrines knowing what has been and is being taught is wrong.
Many non-wofist left because of wof and friends being obnoxious and rude... like being call the Triumvirate, critic, unbeliever, and many other things. It has never been one sided..., except for the delusional pseudo-wofist that calls everyone that has ever mentioned something similar to wof as a wofist. There is no point to redundancy when your critic is static and recalcitrant... insisting on his fantasies as fact. ?This is just critic's arrogance, Joe. Some left because the critics are obnoxious, and they moved on. There is not point to redundancy when your critique is static and recalcitrant.
Careful of the net you throw.... Yodas_Prodigy is not a pseudo-wofist. He may be delusional, but ........, except for the delusional pseudo-wofist that calls everyone that has ever mentioned something similar to wof as a wofist.
Yes...so rude...so rude...Many non-wofist left because of wof and friends being obnoxious and rude... like being call the Triumvirate, critic, unbeliever, and many other things.
Hmmm..."Delusional...?" Yes, well, we know, at least, that WoF doesn't have a monopoly on rude and obnoxious. Thanks for pointing that out.It has never been one sided..., except for the delusional pseudo-wofist that calls everyone that has ever mentioned something similar to wof as a wofist. There is no point to redundancy when your critic is static and recalcitrant... insisting on his fantasies as fact. ?
i for one would never hammer you..neither would I judge youYes...so rude...so rude...
"Triumvirate..." when there were three of you hammering Jffee, a woman, because she was a woman and deciding what was and wasn't "orthodox".
"Critic" because that's what you do, critique, and what you come here for.
"Unbeliever..." Don't even remember who called you that, although, unbelief is a key contrast to the discussion of faith.
Hmmm..."Delusional...?" Yes, well, we know, at least, that WoF doesn't have a monopoly on rude and obnoxious. Thanks for pointing that out.
Since the Word of Faith principles lay a paradigm for sound biblical exegesis, it is not erroneous or presumptuous, as VW always pointed out, to highlight those well-known teachers and scholars throughout history who used the WoF paradigm in biblical interpretation. I know you hate that, but WoF, like the Charismatic phenomena, was never one-time-on and gone.
In what context? These are conversations and perceived hurts that were "inflicted" in the golden age of Christian Forums, when Matthew was trying to decide where to put the WoF forum...were we a "cult"? ...a heterodox anomaly? ...mainline Pentecostal? We ended up here. At that time there were three very outspoken critics who would snarl their disdain for anyone who did not hate Copeland, refute Hagin and despise Benny Hinn.i for one would never hammer you..neither would I judge you
i hope you did not mean me...
Why do you propose farming material like this, Joe? Outlast? Some don't sit in a study hall with nothing to do but wait for the next one. In twenty-five years, the only thing we've lost here is friends who tired of the callous conversations. No one has "won" or "lost" an argument. . You haven't changed in your view. I haven't changed in mine. But the effect on me has been that I can accept that you have your view and hold on to it well. I look forward sometimes to hearing it. The push and shove winds up being more of a give and take. It's much easier to read your posts now.I think you miss the meaning of Ted's post... WOF in this forum thought they could outlast the faithless critics. Ted posts that to remind them that they lost...
"Many" might be exaggerated. Many have communicated to me that I answered their questions, and they are far more in line with WoF than any other hermeneutics. Those who have read the Bible know the biblical basis of the WoF paradigm and the nature of faith. Those who have read history know it's nothing new, but the basis for every revival in history, and don't need the critic's permission to believe the word Jesus Himself spoke.Personally, I don't care if they ever come back. I use this forum as my own playground as well as occasionally posting about the unrepentant doctrines of the movement. I don't mind saying that this forum has caused many WOF to leave the movement and others to modify their doctrines knowing what has been and is being taught is wrong.
I believe that was said for my "benefit". "Pseudo-wofist" is Ted's hit back for "critic."Careful of the net you throw.... Yodas_Prodigy is not a pseudo-wofist. He may be delusional, but .....