wof and Genesis 17:5

[tbeachhead]

Part 1 of two

I made no such claim. My claim is with direction, Pete. You want the biblical message defined by WoF. You said this WoF you preach is the orthodox.

Paul said it. Any other gospel other than the one he preached is accursed.

WoF (not the subset that you would like to be WoF) is so far from orthodox to make your statement a serious falsehood. But you can't see your error.

Or you insist that your error is truth. Swings both ways, but I will stick with Paul.

When you accused me of being narcissistic when I called out yours -- for let's make sure we know what actually happened -- I said EVERYONE here, and I enumerated them, posters, on CARM. But you can't see your error.

I can read. You said I was "narcissistic"...then, when I called you on it, you projected your own narcissism onto everybody...It reminds me of the threads a couple decades back when an unmentionable, narcissistic critic who probably thinks this song is about him insisted that our doctrine was "eclectic." The word came up in every thread as a detriment...because we are willing to read and draw from the writings of the likes of the paedobaptist Murray and even the bane of Servetus Calvin...who each to some greater or lesser degree bear similarity to the writings of Paul.

And the only thing I'm addressing is the error that you have continually calling your version of WoF orthodox, biblical thought; a WoF that you and only you hold to -- at least until you find someone who wears a t-shirt in Afghanistan and YOU adopt them into your pseudo-religion and call them WoF when THEY have never adopted WoF nor called themselves WoF EVER. But you can't see your error.

Didn't you say that Hagin "is not a man trying to be WoF?" Oh yes...two paragraphs down! Dawkins is not a man "trying to be WoF..." He's on the crest of the movement, and if error is found in his teaching, he doesn't try to line back up with WoF...he corrects SO THAT his word lines up with the Bible.

Here's a newsflash. That's called the responsibility of the responsible teacher.

WoF is about as far from orthodox as a religion that still by a slim margin can be called Christian can be. And your prideful slice of WoF is about as far from Word of Faith as you can get and still quote Mark 11:22. But you can't see your error.

Your accusations, as vehement as you make them...don't bring any light to any error I make in my doctrine other than to claim Paul's moniker for what I teach. You have not addressed any error in doctrine. Your fixation is with the label I put on my doctrine and on anyone's who preaches similarly to Paul's.

Geez, this sentence is so full of error and misconstruction that it. First, I didn't quote words you said. I mentioned an admitted concept that you even admit here in this sentence.

Geez...this sentence is so bereft of substance, I can't decipher a point...Your claim that I err is still distilled down to, "I don't like that you call what you teach or what Dawkins teaches or Murray for that matter, WoF." WoF compares their teaching to Paul's...with whom I associate all who preach his doctrine.

Is it because you need the label so that you can apply it to people you don't like...without having to address their error each individually? You haven't addressed mine yet. Only my use of the title Paul used.

Hagin is not a man trying to be Word of Faith. Hagin was the beginning of Word of Faith. He started the movement. He was not preaching to be acceptable to Word of Faith. When error found in his teaching, he did not try to line back up with Word of Faith, he corrected SO THAT Word of Faith could line up with the bible. This is where your mindset is completely backward. But you can't see your error.

And this is the crux of your false claims, isn't it? Did Hagin get up one morning, perhaps inspired by his own first inklings of the day, and think with a flush, "I'm going to start a movement." I think not. He taught. God moved. Critics labeled. That is the genesis of any label. Actually, he got sick unto death very young. God healed...and then he taught. He never "tried" to be WoF. He never sought the label any more than Dawkins seeks it today.

I accept the label, not because I can conform the Bible to the label, but because in all my peregrinations in all the countries and among all the churches, where that church most followed Paul's doctrine that church knew the greatest success, and there is no other movement whose own doctrine is absolutely dependent on scripture alone...deriving its own doctrines from the inductive study of scriptures alone.

You cannot see my point, and your own error is blatant in your accusations. You say I err, and your argument is not in scripture, but in your own prejudicial use of a single term misused conveniently to label certain preachers with a predilection to jets. Can we lay off the label, grateful at least that there is one here who is willing to address the scriptural principles that are uniquely WoF and defend them or agree with your assessment of error?

Your recognizing error and bad doctrine in your own belief system is what Paul says we need to do and be. In this you would do good to line up with the bible. But your own belief system is NOT Word of Faith. It is missing too much to be what Word of Faith is.

Again, this is an empty accusation bereft of substance. What, specifically, do I teach that is not WoF? If it is my own use of the label, a convenience to the critics and useless to Hagin itself, that seems like a very flimsy objection, unworthy of threads of discussions like this one.

 

[tbeachhead]

Part 2 of 2 hoping I made a judicious cut.

But you can't see the error. Now, if you shed error from Word of Faith and say you will not follow the error any longer but only what you see as biblical, that is great. It is not Word of Faith any longer, though. But you can't see your error in this.

Error? Which specifically, that you can label as "WoF and WoF exclusively..." proving your allegation by quoting someone who authoritatively ascribed such error to WoF and WoF alone.

I have seen no authority beyond that of accusation.

Yes.

Someone has redefined WoF. That much is clear....and it wasn't Hagin or Kenyon.

Because you have redefined the true nature of what Word of Faith is. And you call some subset counterfeit by the same name. But you can't see your error.

Let's go back to Hagin...Who is the one who definitively defined it in his day, so that he and he alone stands as the sole true adherent? And who sorted the separate teachers into that exclusive list to which you alone are privy, and from which I'm absolutely denied access?

I only define it by what is globally known to be Word of Faith.

Globally? Bob. Newsflash. Globally, absolutely NO ON CARES. The label is a convenience for a basis for discussion. If I say, "I'm Charismatic...", there is an understanding what I believe concerning 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Acts 2. Same with Pentecostal, with a little more Baptist baggage. If I say, "I'm WoF," I'm not defined by Hagin, who has no biblical authority at all, but by what Paul calls it...and I'm also corrected by the same, not by an array of accusations that you continue to proffer here. It's not narcissistic to say, "The Bible corrects me, not the critic bereft of any scriptural authority."

I have no private definition like you do. There is NOBODY else using your definition. Nobody except you.

I've lost count of the number of people having this discussion...

For simplicity's sake: You want to use it, so you can decry the likes of Wommack, Hagin to a lesser degree, Copeland to a greater degree...and Hobart Freeman? Is that right?

So, on that basis, I should withdraw from this board so we can hammer the dead guys and the very old guys? Not for the sake of doctrines that you question? But because they are execrable offscouring of humanity?

I have no names to call you simply because you have your own belief. Mine certainly does not match any denomination. But I don't call myself Word of Faith or claim the title charismatic to only my beliefs.

Christianity is not exclusive to me...I'm not Joe Smith. And WoF is not either. You simply don't seem to grasp the origins of the term, and you believe that since Paul coined it, it has not been used or claimed at any moment in history until the blessed advent of Kenyon?

I'm stuck in telling the truth at the moment.

Well...redefining "the truth and defining priorities in theological debate." You're trying to make all the lurkers reading this understand what "the truth" is...according to your definition, while avoiding the "bunny trail" of a real dictionary, that would only confuse your point. None of your claims have the authority you claim...but each is as consistent as it was the last time you made the claim. And while your so fixated on your version of truth, the brevity of light-hearted humor escapes you completely. Nothing can be funny for the critic...

You can't see your own error.

Help me see...scripture. Chapter and verse help after you quote it. Labels that you have absconded with and defined according to your own prejudices don't help as much. I've quoted Paul, and shown that he described and defined the "word of faith" that he teaches. I've reminded you that he admonished us to imitate him, and that anyone preaching any other gospel should be accursed. That's the standard. You have not yet even once brought anything scriptural against my claims.

It's not because critics abuse Paul's phraseology as a label that the critics have the upper hand. They have never been right concerning WoF, not even when they were here in large numbers. On the critics' side, the charge was always directed against a man and his excesses, and when that man's doctrine, his jets excluded, was examined with scriptures, the critics argument faded until another redundant thread arose.

Such is the history of this board...

Deflection again. Can we ever stick to the subject of redefining Word of Faith?

Until I've agreed with your redefinition? Or can we go with Paul who coined the term, and compare doctrines to his?

I don't understand. That is why I asked questions.

Your questions are far more rare than the assumptions you make. There was never a time where my friend's healing was not central to the story I'm relating. And the fact that the MRI showed NO SCARS after an operation that she was warned would kill her.

So she is alive today. It was a "prognosis [that would have] put her in the grave." That was not clear.

Bunny trail to understanding:

A prognosis is--

1. A prediction of the probable course and outcome of a disease.
2. The likelihood of recovery from a disease.
3. A forecast or prediction.

That was the doctor's grim prediction prior to and even after the operation, and before the Christmas concert where we met and I prayed.

I'm glad for her and pray she continues in health. Keep her away from Wommack.

I don't know of anyone who is talking about him lately around here. Is he still alive?

I'm projecting nothing. I simply repeated a story out of Wommack's mouth. Your story reminded me of Wommack's error. Perhaps you could read better next time. I heard that sage advise recently.

Do I need to paste the definition? I can. You're applying from another situation what does not come close to representing the testimony I'm relating, and in order to cast doubt on that testimony.

It was Word of Faith that led her to the grave. Which is how I know that what you preach is not Word of Faith.

I thought it was cancer that led her to the grave...and her choices were informed by Wommack...whose error is apparent for all.