tbeachhead
Well-known member
This happened. Rod Saunters, who used to be a regular poster, now has a podcast.
Today was a fun day. What do you do with Pat Roberson and CBN?
Today was a fun day. What do you do with Pat Roberson and CBN?
So this happened
- Thread starter tbeachhead
- Start date
I watched part of the interview and then I decided to look up jewandgreek.com. I read most of the site and then I came across this comment. "I believe that the WOF will eventually be accepted as orthodox (which means right belief) whether the majority of Christians believe it or not."
So my question to you beachie is "what happened?" How is this working out," especially on these boards?
In Hinn,
james
So my question to you beachie is "what happened?" How is this working out," especially on these boards?
In Hinn,
james
tbeachhead
Well-known member
I appreciate that. I'd do the same for you when you hit the blog circuits. Post a clip.
"On these boards" is no criteria, Jamesie...Really. The best Ted can do is post another "WoF is dead" thread every three months. When you bring nothing new to the table, we do fine going out to eat. I'm having a blast now on the ethics board and the Jewish board...where the atheists are more reasonable and interested than the critics here. WoF is not WoF except in kingdom terms, where the Kingdom is moving forward. Here, everything stagnates, and there's less to think about.I read most of the site and then I came across this comment. "I believe that the WOF will eventually be accepted as orthodox (which means right belief) whether the majority of Christians believe it or not."
So my question to you beachie is "what happened?" How is this working out," especially on these boards?
In Hinn,
james
Look at Ted's comment above. It drips with deterioration. Nothing new, and zero insight. Life has passed this board by.
In the first place, Ted is correct in his assessment. Secondly, I should have said, "this board" because Wof is dead here. So now, tell me or show me evidence that Wof has been accepted by orthodoxy? I do realize the man said, "eventually?" How long is an "eventually?" Can you please give me one or two prophecies that have come to pass by Kenneth Copeland?
In Hinn,
james
In Hinn,
james
tbeachhead
Well-known member
Obviously he isn't. WoF criticism is not only dead, it's deadening to any who confront it. Arguing the same argument with the same words year after year does nothing to inspire...or improve anyone's life or perspective. Indeed, being a critic does nothing and serves for nothing but self-justification.
No...I've not listened to Cope in decades. Cope's message is dead to me, and does not represent well the WoF that Paul preaches.
Besides, that was always the frustration here, wasn't it, the tendency to turn substantive debate concerning principles and doctrine to pure ad hominem guilt by association?
Rachel Redux
Well-known member
Tbeachhead, is that you? Cool...
tbeachhead
Well-known member
Yep...this is me and Rod, I forget what his screen name was, but he was a regular back in the heyday when there were as many full humored proponents of WoF as there were curmudgeonly, humorless critics. Now there remain the still-lovable, and excruciatingly predictable curmudgeons.
tbeachhead
Well-known member
You didn't watch it. Great choice.
tbeachhead
Well-known member
No one proves my point better than you, Ted. Please carry on. If you can think of a single reason why your deadening obsession invites intelligent response, I’d love to know if you’re still able to train.
tbeachhead
Well-known member
I see no evidence why ”orthodoxy” commands acceptance by WoF any more than Jesus accepted the traditions of the orthodox Pharisees who, like a MacArthur etal, were known to nullify the Word in favor of their “orthodox” traditions?
That flies in the face of any acceptable definition of 'orthodoxy'. Such an absurdity could never meet a test of orthodoxy i.e. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus credituni est.I watched part of the interview and then I decided to look up jewandgreek.com. I read most of the site and then I came across this comment. "I believe that the WOF will eventually be accepted as orthodox (which means right belief) whether the majority of Christians believe it or not."
So my question to you beachie is "what happened?" How is this working out," especially on these boards?
In Hinn,
james
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
There's always only been ONE BASIC PROBLEM with "WOF".I watched part of the interview and then I decided to look up jewandgreek.com. I read most of the site and then I came across this comment. "I believe that the WOF will eventually be accepted as orthodox (which means right belief) whether the majority of Christians believe it or not."
So my question to you beachie is "what happened?" How is this working out," especially on these boards?
In Hinn,
james
FAITH has nothing to do with it.
It should be called "WOP" (not the Italian version) because it's all "Presumption", superheated flesh, and theological methodology - i.e. "if you do this, and hold your mouth right, God MUST do that". "Creative theology" at it's heretical best.
But Biblical FAITH INVARIABLY STARTS WITH GOD. I recall that Dad Hagin had three "foundational passages":
What's faith? = Heb 11:1
Where's it come from? = Rom 10:17
How's it applied? = Mark 11;22-24
Abram didn't personally decide to "Hit the Road" in order to MAKE God bless him, and make him a great nation. GOD started the whole thing with HIS WORD to Abram. And Abram didn't even fully obey (Took Lot with him). Regardless, when Abram finally dumped Lot, the promise got underway again.
Mark 11:22-24 is still in the Bible, with its PROMISE (which everybody wants) and it's CONDITIONS (which nobody pays any attention to).
I agree that the MAJORITY of "Denominational Christians" will want nothing to do with it - just like everybody fought against the Pentecostal revival, at the turn of the century, and some still do.
And then the Charismatic outpouring rolled on through in the '70s, and their largest opponents were the "Pentecostals" (because Charismatics weren't "clothesline holy" enough for 'em).
Time was when "Personal Salvation" wasn't orthodox (according to the church du jour). It still isn't to Catholics.
Last edited:
tbeachhead
Well-known member
Sigh...
You used to know how to distinguish between WoF and false doctrine...which you called "toxic".
Faith has everything to do with WoF...as Paul taught it, and as the unscrupulous of both toxic sides seek to pervert the precepts and doctrines. There is one gospel of the Kingdom, as Jesus presented it and embodied it, and as the apostles went out and spread it. Paul said he taught the Word of Faith, and his letters show us the gospel of the kingdom as he presented it.
To whom here are you referring? There has never been anyone of that ilk on this board, and the reasonable ones were driven away from here by the critics and the futility of repetitive argument years ago.
We teach the Word of God is truth and in it there are many great and precious promises, whereby, believing them and acting in faith, we become partakers of the divine nature. There is nothing of presumption in that...there is Peter's second epistle that encourages us in what we should believe.
Actually, biblical FAITH invariably begins with the Word of God, because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word alone. The devil, as James says, believes in God...and trumbles.
He wasn't told not to take Lot. He was told to go...and he went. Abraham became the father of our faith, because He heard the Word from God, took God at His Word, and that was accounted to him for righteousness.
There is much to discuss here still...and we have discussed it here often.
This isn't even history...The A/G became a hub for Charismatics and a melting pot through the height of the Charismatic renewal. The Cessationists fashioned themselves the "orthodoxy," took up the role of accuser and critic, as the pharisees before them, and made millions selling books to divide the church and intimidate pastors into limiting the Holy Spirit's involvement in the teaching and practice of their body.
Folks will justify their own error by arguing against another's error.
tbeachhead
Well-known member
Unless of course quod ab omnibus credituni errorum est. Then error becomes the orthodoxy. This is the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees.
The Roman Catholic Church comes to mind, of course, but we forget how they got there. The delightful years of WoF's "heterodoxy" on CARM led to some of the most historically comical exchanges.
Even after all these years, you lack a clear understanding of what orthodoxy entails. Carry on.
tbeachhead
Well-known member
Really. After all these years, you still believe the definition of “orthodoxy,” the prevailing religious opinion of a subjective majority, has any value for assessment or enforcement. The Roman Catholics still agree with you, and you are anathema to them. Still.
Where quod ab omnibus credituni errorum est, orthodoxy is error.
Where quod ab omnibus credituni errorum est, orthodoxy is error.
tbeachhead
Well-known member
The point obviously being that the “orthodoxy” has never held the monopoly on Truth, and historically it has been the “orthodoxy” that has withstood and even opposed all Truth, beginning with the Pharisees and plowing its way through Rome and beyond. Calvinists burned anabaptistes, you’ll remember…or perhaps not. The opinion of a subjective, exclusive majority of ruling elders does not bear the weight or the authority of the Word, their self-adulating claims notwithstanding.
Last edited:
Petty much a confirmation of what I stated above. I'll leave you to your own foolishness now.