Talk:Word of Faith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page Restructuring

I think that it would be impossible to write an article on the Word of Faith Movement without including a section on the criticism that it gets. I don't believe that this article is biased at all it simply highlights the fact, not an opinion that much of the teaching in this movement is inconsistent, with mainstream christian doctrine. It also explains that several theologians have concerns about the movement. I have read other articles and they are biased however this is not. I suspect that the people who are objecting here are either teaching this stuff or making money from it, or both as the case often is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.214.0 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is bad enough that despite the presence of a separate "Critics and Controversy" page, criticism is included in the main body of the article, but the criticism is also rendered in deceptive language that hides the fact that it is infact criticism, speaking of "observations made" by the names given, rather than "criticism offered".

If criticism is going to be included in the main body, it should atleast be made clear that it is infact criticism.

I have made changes to rectify these problems but someone has reverted the text to it's original form. - Perceiver

Is it just me, or is there a lot of critical/dissenting words in the main body of the article? Maybe a 'criticism' section could be made? Have one section dictating the beliefs, and another explaining criticisms. As it is, the article doesn't read like a standard Wikipedia article, where the beliefs are stated in one section, then differeing viewpoints are stated in another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.108 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge these pages

Very simply:

1. While the subsection under Word of Faith that specifically points to this subject is important, the subject itself (prosperity theology) is one that is transdenominational in nature. Thus, to limit it under Pentecostalism is misleading and will not adequately allow for links to it from other pages.

2. Many preachers and writers follow this type of theology in their work, even though their work doesn't specifically point to "prosperity theology." Many non-pentecostal preachers, like Joel Osteen, talk about making the life of the Christian better by following God's law and by having strong faith (refer to his book "Your Best Life Now"). This is essentially the same things as prosperity theology (perhaps in its broader sense).

3. Other denominations, such as Lutheranism, preach against what they call "theology of glory", or the belief that the life of Christians is supposed to be better than the lives of non-Christians. They would point specifically to this type of theology, prosperity theology, as contrary to their Lutheran teachings.

4. Finally, the term "prosperity theology" is a better term than "Word of Faith" for referencing this type of theology. The two, as others point out, are distinctly different.

You make some excellent points. I almost didn't find them since I was looking for new discussion at the bottom of the page. I can't argue with your logic. Your statement about Joel Osteen piqued my interest. His dad, John Osteen, who founded the church Joel "inherited" was an outspoken charismatic. I would be surprised if the church would have voted Joel in the pastorate if he differed on such a significant issue. I'll have to look into it. By the way, as I pointed out in discussion further below, some of the strongest critics of the Word of Faith theology have been Pentecostals and Charismatics themselves who resent the faith teachers' efforts to hide within the folds of their clothing.--Will3935 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge? No!

One of the reasons for confusion here is that the article on Full Gospel is inadequate. "Full Gospel" refers to the Pentecostal belief that the gospel includes physical healing as well as spiritual (ie salvation). "Word-Faith" is distinct historically, sociologically and theologically, even though it shares similarities. Hopefully now the article is part of the WikiProject on Charismatic Christianity, some knowledgeable folk can start to clean up both articles to make them both clearer.

below moved by EvanCarroll (talk)

agreed do not merge, id rather have more cults individually placed online than bunched together so the kingdom workers stop turning a blind eye to the ever-popular mega churches in america and australia.

Proposed merge from Full Gospel

It's not clear to me that these two articles should be merged. From the articles themselves, it appears that these are two distinct movements, started at different times by different people, though they do seem to be "barking up the same tree" to some degree. Of course, two distinct movements may believe in the same or similar things and not be the same movement. Is there some documentation that Word of faith is simply an explicit continuation of Full Gospel? If there is an article merge, at a minimum the articles would need to be changed to eliminate the latter of the two origination stories and unify these two items to reflect them as merely different names applied to the same movement. --Gary D 09:12, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, they don't seem to be the same thing. I oppose the merge. --Locarno 15:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

As a Charismatic Christian, I know as a fact that there is no essential difference between "Full Gospel" Christians and "Word of Faith" Christians. They are just labels, nothing more.

---

Yes, but as movements they are separated by nearly a century. That in itself makes them distinct topics as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. Certainly they should be linked, as they are similar; but even without the chronological separation, the theologies seem to be different. Word of Faith stresses guaranteed healing and prosperity to those who claim it fervently enough, or with enough faith; that didn't seem to be stressed as much in Full Gospel (although I only know about Full Gospel what I learned from the Wiki). --Okto8 05:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I had always understood "Full Gospel" to be nothing more or less than a synonym for Pentecostalism and more recently the practices of the Charismatic movement, with churches using the term Full Gospel as a way of making known to the public that they believe in healing, speaking in tongues and other Pentecostal or Charismatic beliefs. Full Gospel is, basically, a marketing term. An example of its use, and probably the best known, is the Full Gospel Businessmens Fellowship. "Word of Faith" is a specific movement within Pentecostalism associated with Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, and related to or often derided as "name it and claim it" or "the prosperity gospel". I don't think merging the two would be accurate. If anything I would think Full Gospel and Pentecostalism would be more appropriate to merge. Kaibabsquirrel 20:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Maybe we could condense the whole encyclopedia into about 100 "newspeak"entries! (Just kidding! Please see my entry under full gospel talk.)

---

"Full Gospel" refers to a broad view of scripture that encompasses two separate waves of spiritual renewal: 1) Pentecostalism, born at the turn of the century 1900, and 2) the Charismatic Movement, born in the late 1940's in the Catholic Church, spilling over into the Episcopal Church, then Methodists, and other Protestants. The Full Gospel Businessmen's Association http://www.fgbmfi.org/who.htm began in 1951 to promote this renewal movement before the term Charismatic was coined. Dr Larry Hart, Professor at Oral Roberts University, wrote his doctoral thesis (Southern University) on the threads of the Pentecostal renewal that were present from the Book of Acts to modern times. He sees the Holiness Movement of Charles Finney, rooted in Wesleyan theology, as the precursor to the Pentecostal experience of Charles Parham. Parham had been a healing evangelist until he received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by glossolalia. Both movements ascribe to the Full Gospel interpretation of scripture, i.e., not throwing out certain sections of scripture as a by-gone dispensation of God that no longer occurs. Dr. Hart refers to these two movements of the Full Gospel perspective as Pentecostalism and Neo-Pentecostalism. William Swatos provides an objective article about these origins at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cmovement.htm . In the mid-1970s non-denominational Charismatic churches began to emerge. Shortly before the advent of the Full Gospel Businessmen's Association several "faith healer" ministries began, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Gordon Lindsey, A.A. Allen, etc. All taught "faith" for healing, even getting one's needs met, but two of these, Hagin and Roberts, extended the teaching of faith to prosperity, i.e., over and above one's needs. At this point a "faith movement" was definitely in motion. The Word of Faith Movement developed from that and is often credited to Kenneth Hagin. One poster here accurately states that it is not a denomination as it spans denominations. While Rhema Ministerial Alliance could be likened to a denomination, or at least an association of ministers and churches, there are whole other such associations that are self-described as Word of Faith. Yet, various ministers of traditional, non-WOF denominations also ascribe to the teachings. Merging the three is an act of ignorance of what they are. Reading the respective articles makes that conclusion understandable. Why would one have obviously biased critics write about a topic?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbcjr (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems that there was only one or two advocates of the merge and they didn't defend themselves. I'm removing the merge notice. --Locarno 5 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Merge?

Should Prosperity Theology and Health and Wealth Gospel be merged into this article? I've done some cursory initial research, and it seems that all of these terms relate to essentially the same phenomenon. Note the cross references and similar descriptions here. Does anyone agree or disagree, and why? - Jersyko talk 21:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• This makes most sense: "All Word of Faith is Prosperity Theology, but not all Prosperity Theology is Word of Faith." For example, Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller teach health and wealth but they are far from WoF. Not only do Peale-Schuller appear to advocate universal salvation, they are not Pentecostals. They also share no influences. They cannot be merged.

• • Can you please indicate how they are different, then? - Jersyko talk 07:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Word of Faith" and "Full Gospel" are terms used by followers, while "Word-Faith Theology" (with a hyphen) and "Health and Wealth Gospel" (as well as the phrase "Name It and Claim It") are used exclusively by critics.

Word of Faith is a superset of Full Gospel; both groups believe in Gifts of the Spirit (including speaking in tongues) and divine healing, while Word of Faith places additional emphasis on faith and financial prosperity. It's hard to draw a line between the two groups, since many people who started out in Full Gospel demominations and groups have since embraced Word of Faith beliefs.

I agree they should be merged. The content of these three articles says nothing to distinguish them. Health and Wealth even says that it's a synonym for word of faith. Either merge them, or add content that distinguishes them. --Staecker 13:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As a Word of Faith adherent, I don't think Word of Faith and Full Gospel should be merged. In my view there are fundamental differences in belief. Gloria Copeland, one of the most prominent voices within Word of Faith theology, has often referred to what "some Full Gospel people" believe, pointing out that they are different and in disagreement with some WoF beliefs.

Also. And this is important. WoF is prosperity theology, but not all prosperity theology is Word of Faith. There are many different flavors of prosperity theology -- for example, Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale are their own universalist prosperity denomination, having no influence in or from WoF. - anon

• I still haven't seen exactly how one can distinguish the groups or movements. You state that Copeland "points out that they are different" and "disagrees with some Word of Faith beliefs." Can you please provide specifics? If Copeland's attack is merely a general one, the fact that adherents of one might want to distance themselves from another movement without providing any concrete differences between/among them leads me to believe that they are all essentially the same, but that negative connotations have attached to one or more of the phrases used to describe the movement. - Jersyko talk 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Copeland's remarks were not significant or an attack on Full Gospel.

Almost all of the contemporarys named in this article are trinity broadcasting regulars. The statement about the prosperity movement of TBN should be changed to indicate that this WOF doctorine is a main part of TBN. It is evident to me that this doctorine is a subcategory to the prosperity doctorine, as it is written, and from a theological standpoint. Although from a timing standpoint it would seem the contrary. Prosperity theology encompases any belief that God will prosper you whether the formula is through tithing and works, or a promise that God will prosper you based on your faith alone. This WOF movement seems to be based mainly on faith in a Promise. trappy77

I disagree with merging Prosperity theology with Word of Faith. On the contrary, I suggest Prosperity gospel become the main heading for an article merging with Prosperity theology. My reasons are similar to those given by several people above: "Prosperity gospel" encompasses many theologies that are certainly not Word-Faith, eg those of Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale, arguably liberals. David L Rattigan 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is CRAP. It's written from an adversarial point of view. It's not NPOV AT ALL.184.7.111.51 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Where?

Is this like an essentially american thing? Does this cult have followers in other countries? Shouldn't this be stated in the article (say, in the first paragraph)?

Word-Faith is international, although it began in the US. This article is now part of the WikiProject on Charismatic Christianity, so hopefully a good clean-up will take this kind of thing into account. David L Rattigan 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Called Into Question

I call into question the "little gods" segment of the entry. It implies that Hagen has specifically called Christians "little gods", but I've listened to many hours of his teaching (well upwards of 100) and I've been to some of his services but I've never heard any such statements. Hagen has more than implied that Christians possess abilities such as Jesus' (healing others, casting out demons, etc.), but I've never heard him or any of his followers state that Christians are on par with Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit. I'll see if I can find any of his books that have been sourced to see if those quotes were taken out of context.MafiaCapo 16:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added several category headings recently in an attempt to clean up the article and structure it according to the main strands of Faith teaching. They are rough headings for now. I think the stream of thought represented by the 'little gods' teaching is important enough to be included, although whether to call that section 'little gods' or something else is up for grabs, especially if it's disputed whether Hagin actually uses that term. What I don't think can be disputed is that almost all the major faith teachers use some sort of language that expresses the same thought, eg "the believer is Christ" (Hagin), believers are gods, believers are "duplicates" of God, believers are "in the same class as God". Whether they all use that exact term ("little gods") is uncertain. David L Rattigan 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I graduated seminary at ORU, my wife graduated from Rhema. We have heard thousands of WOF sermons and read the books. The "little gods" thing and the like are others hyperbole of Hagin's and others teachings. This is NOT to say their teachings are without due criticism, just this isn't it.Dbcjr (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the "Little 'Gods'" segment be changed into "Like Christ" or "Akin to Christ" (or any similar thing that conveys the same idea) -for the time being- as the notion that Christians are equal to God seemingly goes against "you shall have no other gods before Me" (one of the commandments- but I don't recall which one specifically) which is one of the main tenats of Christianity. MafiaCapo 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Like Christ" would be misleading, as the language used is far stronger than that. It's not our job to soften what the faith teachers say in order to make it more consistent! I will do a bit more reading around the subject and see if I can find a more appropriate heading. David L Rattigan 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading: http://www.myfortress.org/AreChristiansLittleGods.html I retract my arguement and I have no objections to the segment's content. MafiaCapo 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I have substantially expanded that section, but kept the title the same. David L Rattigan 20:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that this section does seem to be a little 'out there' and that the statements do not seem to meet the neutral point of view.Terrillwhite 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the topic as a controversy is legitimate. this brief section clearly gives two opposing POV, and further NPOV was easily reached by clearly describing it as controversy, rather than slapping a NNPOV template on the entire article.-Robotam 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A friendly challenging perspective that I would like you to consider: I was a huge Hank Hanegraaff fan in the late 90's who has read "Christianity in Crisis" and "Counterfeit Revival" and who has gotten to know Word of Faith people in recent years pretty well. Whatever the original teachers meant by "little gods" in the handful of sound bytes that you all continue to focus on is certainly a misrepresentation with respect to what Word of Faith people understand it to mean nowadays. Your interpretation of what they meant in those sound bytes is certainly disgusting theology, no doubt. Heresy in fact! But it is wrong to demonize an entire denomination of Christians just because some of their teachers were caught on tape getting carried away and momentarily going too far with their excitement of their understanding of who they are in Christ. The result of them putting their foot in their mouth is immortalized in digital format until Christ returns. What a shame. I am very glad that the stupid things that I've occasionally heard coming out of my own mouth haven't been caught on tape--I certainly don't agree with everything that I say when I'm not cautious with the words I use. If your interpretation of what they mean by "little gods" is correct about elevating man to equality with God, then I would challenge your group to find additional sounds bytes that make this more clear. If it is not correct, then we could be dealing with an issue of semantics, language structure, and the occasional unfortunate misspoken sound byte which isn't fair to judge people about (especially different people in the denomination who interpret it another way than you suggest). Out of the tens of thousands of hours of sound bytes that you have to analyze from these teachers, you use the same handful of sound bytes over and over again to substantiate your idea that these people believe this. But that is not enough to convince an honest observer that this is how the entire denomination perceives it, especially considering how many Rhema people I have talked to that deny their understanding of it in the way you describe. In short, "little gods" theology is nothing more than what is taught in Genesis 1 that man was made in God's image, in His likeness. It is because of this likeness (compatibility with God in our designed nature) that God and man are able to have spiritual communion via the Holy Spirit, who enters our spirit/soul and becomes a part of who we are when we are born again with Jesus Christ. When we are born again, Jesus is in us and we are in Him, we are one with Him. (John 14:20, John 15:4-7, John 17:20-25, 1 Corinthians 6:17) Does this mean we ARE Jesus? Of course not! Does it mean that we are equal with God? Far from it! Rhema people don't think of it this way, and even if some of them did, such heretics certainly don't speak for everyone. When Christians discover the principle of being "in" Jesus in a more practical experiential sense rather than a theological cerebral sense, they get extremely excited. It's no surprise that sound bytes are produced of teachers getting carried away with that excitement (and saying stupid things that they don't end up believing when it comes down to it), and it is even less surprising that people who lean toward a cerebral relationship with Christ (sometimes to the exclusion of experiential relationship) misunderstand them. Human beings are complicated, please don't oversimplify what people think. While God is indeed interested in what is in people's minds, He is much more interested in what is in people's hearts. Word of Faith has had some very disturbing problems, and many of those problems are getting fixed, so I am thankful that the Bible Answer Man crowd prays for them more often than they shoot at them. Thank you for loving them. --DavidPesta 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

With all respect to you, as your tone is respectful, and I sense a true Christian spirit even though I disagree, Hank Hanegraaff is a nasty opponent of both the Charismatic and Word of Faith Movements. He can be quite hateful at times. Jesus' words of "Let Him who is without sin cast the first stone certainly apply as Hank is no saint: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cri/law.htm The WOF is due some criticism, but you do your argument no good by referencing Hank. Dbcjr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an entirely separate point, how different is the phrase "little god" from "little christ"? I ask this question because "little christ" is what the word "christian" actually means. People say things and have different meanings than what others might perceive. --DavidPesta 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, David. I think you are jumping the gun a little bit here. Neither of us in the above discussion offered the interpretation of the "little gods" language that you suggested. The article itself only gives direct quotes and then offers the two interpretations ("It's literal, and therefore heresy" vs "It's just another way of expressing the believer's identity in Christ").

If you have verifiable sources that expand on what the Faith teachers mean by "little gods", please include it. At the moment, the article only really notes that they use this language, without going into detail how it should be interpreted. David L Rattigan 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have the resources needed to comb tens of thousands of hours of material to find where these teachers may have corrected themselves on these points. However, the next time I hear one of them suggest something that indicates a personally submissive frame of mind toward the Lord, I'll be sure to report it (and vice versa). Unfortunately I'm not one who spends time listening to Copeland or Hagen who are the teachers in question, I only hear things from them second hand from others who enjoy their teachings, which isn't very often lately. For all I know those two really did have serious "little god" doctrinal problems at some time, but those who pay attention to them don't have the same problems. Either way, it is very clear to me that these "little god" interpretation problems are not at all emphasized by the teachers since those who pay attention to them are totally untouched in their perspective/attitude toward God by it and on many occasions outright deny that point of view. Maybe Hank scared it out of those teachers. ;D It's been a pleasure. --DavidPesta 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as far as divine healing goes, I have personally seen God dramatically heal something overnight that doctors were unable to heal over the course of 11 years. And it was done in the context of the name of Jesus. I don't have access to documentation that proves this, so you're just going to have to write me off as some kind of fanatic if you choose not to believe me. I agree that it is very bad to deny the symptoms of sickness and avoid doctors, but it appears that God is still willing to use the diligent prayers of the simple minded who don't understand good doctrine properly. I have such a deep sense inside of me that the extreme compassion of Jesus to heal the sick transcends all that. This is not to say that proper mindsets are unimportant--I really believe they are. --DavidPesta 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have spent many years researching this movement and am impressed at the quality of the article. I added two important resources -- a fairly new book by Rob Bowman and an old article by Brian Onken and will correct a small, grammatical error. (Note to David Pesta: Most of the critics of the word-faith movement believe in divine healing [Charles Farah, D.R. McConnell, Walter Martin, Dave Hunt, Rob Bowman, Dale Simmons, Gordon Fee, and Judson Cornwall, for example].) The bottom line is best portrayed in McConnell's book, A Different Gospel. E.W. Kenyon was influenced by New Thought mind science (and to a lesser degree by Christian Science). He did not agree with these movements as a whole so he took the elements he did like and expressed them in slightly different terms (the "subconcious" became the "recreated human spirit," and "positive affirmation" became "positive confession," for example). Hagin plagiarized Kenyon and popularized Kenyon's essentially mind-science theology. Other have come along and followed Hagn's lead. I commend the editors of this article for maintaining the distinction between this specific movement and the entire Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. Critics of Pentecostals and Charismatics often try to unfairly identify them with this aberrant movement, and word-faith advocates often try to hide within the folds of mainstream Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. The only caution I would give is to avoid portraying Hank Hanegraff as someone all critics of the movement respect. Hank has has his own problems. As to merging with prosperity doctrine there are pros and cons, but I think mostly pros. Prosperity teaching can be found outside of this specific movement, but it is popularly associated with it. Well Done.--Will3935 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That is all very important information. I did read McConnell's book, A Different Gospel and agree about the roots of the movement. However, it should be known that many of the followers of this movement in today's world do not carry this baggage. It appears that God was successfully able to communicate a proper way to understand these things to His people who have humbled their hearts before Him. They are too uneducated to know the bad roots of their movement in an academic sense. Please note that because of this many of them are brothers and sisters in Christ and are not a lost cause to be cut off. We can benefit from them as individuals through the giftings that God has given them for the body of Christ. There are certain components that they have been trained in regarding faith--components that the Lord has refined, making them extremely powerful in the area of Christ centered prayer and seeing radical tangible results. The bad roots of the movement are not emphasized in their lives or even mentioned. It would seem that once again God has demonstrated His ability to cause a perversion of the enemy to fail, even backfire, especially in the lives of the individual believers I refer to. --DavidPesta 15:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the teachings I have read in modern word-faith books, but I do not reject word-faith adherents as non-Christian -- not that our personal opinions about the movement should have anything to do with a Wikipedia article. Remember NPOV.--Will3935 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many Christians from many denominations strongly disagree with each other about many different things. May the Lord continue to grow all of us closer to Him in our relationship and understanding of Him. Blessings to you! --DavidPesta 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The critiques should be allowed with everything else. Instead of removing the title "little gods", the pro and con terms should be left in this title, with the case for each stated below. That is the only way to remain objective on this. Removing it would make this pro-Word of Faith. Leaving it would be anti-Word of Faith. Personally, I believe the WoF movement takes Scripture out of context (ignores the seeking God's will segments in prayer passages, and assumes God only works for what we in our finite knowledge think is good), but I believe it is essential to show both terms to be fair to both beliefs. Blessings! Dave Daveleau 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this particular segment of Christianity has to deal with a section of Controversies in its Wikipedia article, but mainstream denominations (Baptist, Methodist) don't have to. It appears to me that this entire article has been reduced to a clash between those who believe in this manner and those who feel a moral resposibility to save them from themselves. Is that now the mission of Wikipedia? Steventhomas42 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources before you name names

Removed the whole section of supposed proponents of this movement all entries have no sources cited and are not verified and are both doubtful and harmful From wikipedia:citing sources All unsourced and poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See the official policy statements: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel

Scripture segment

Wasn't there a list of Scriptures one could look up to evaluate the Word-Faith teaching on the main page not that long ago, and why was it taken down? WAVY 10 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the explanation of ^ice in the talk section entitled Prosperity may be the reason. I think there should be a listing of biblical references used by Word of Faith teachings. Gabriello 14:52, 09 February 2008 (UTC)

False details

FALSE Word of Faith, also known as Word-Faith or simply Faith, is a teaching within Pentecostal and charismatic churches worldwide. TRUE Most Pentecostal churches hold that preaching the Gospel to unbelievers as extremely ...TRUE European pentecostalisn is Protestant doctrine... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.250.192.250 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

NPOV now?

Given previous discussion I don't want to simply stick an NNPOV tag on the article, but to someone like myself who has only the merest layman's knowledge of Christianity, it appears terribly critical of the WoF movement. Anyone for trying to clean this up? Panchitaville^talk 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not about making a non-critical view – it is about attributing all positive and negative stmts to external sources. NPOV is just about Wikipedia "cleaning its hands". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I know very little about this subject, but surely there is at least 1 (ONE) website advocating "word of faith?" Why is there a huge number of critical pages without any positive ones?

Yoda921 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Maybe you just answered your own question. On a serious note I am sure there are plenty. www.rhema.com is sure to have something.--DreamsAreMadeOf 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The list of external links that advocate "Word of Faith" has grown since your post but I think it's interesting that those who hold differing views are self-proclaimed "opponents" of Word of Faith. Their rhetoric boarders on offensive. Gabriello 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Prosperity section

Based on the discussion below, and since there have been no edits for a long time (and my own personal opinion that the section was not well written or organized - probebly from the contentious nature of the subject) I substantially re-wrote the entire section. I think I have laid out the major themes of modern Word-Faith Prosperity teaching, and I left some of the pro/con arguments. It could use some more citation but I will leave that for now. I hope that this section makes a bit more sense now and that it fairly states the reasoning behind the theology, as well as the criticisms of it. Regards, 63.198.166.225 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC). (Added 11 April 2008)

Added two paragraphs to the prosperity section, because the section ended with a passage on how poor the early church was (the church in Jerusalem). This is a one-sided argument and not a description of the merits and drawbacks of a certain movement. Ending a section with a one-sided argument is not good. Not wanting to delete it, I presented a contra-view and expanded on how much of prosperity makes for a WoF movement. Hopefully this will help people distinguish what is WoF, and what is not WoF, because some groups are really unjustly accused of teaching what they do not teach, as soon as someone hears the word "prosperity". Myself been both in WoF environments and in more balanced circles. Latreia 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: User 75.132.95.79, who reverted my previous edit , please be civil and condescend to discussion before reverting stuff. (referring to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Word_of_Faith&diff=152607839&oldid=152444770). I didn't delete your paragraph that was an ARGUMENT, not encyclopedia material, but simply provided another view, substantiated by Scripture, for the reader to be able to understand diverse opinions of the subject. Deleting descriptions of opposing opinion is NPOV. Your talk page shows that you have already had issues with being revert-happy. "What???..." (as an "edit description") is hardly valid. We do not discuss in articles, we discuss on talk pages, so please do that. Latreia 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

your "another view" is absolute gobbledegook; see merriam webster; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=gobbledegook Your addition was not required whereas the previous explanation of word faith prosperity teaching was sufficient to substantiate their teaching. Furthermore, it was very poorly written. Humiliating none the less. I suggest you keep it concise and to the point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk)

//your "another view" is absolute gobbledegook\\ This is your private POV. You presented a POV in an encyclopedia article. A one-sided argument, supporting only one POV. I presented another POV. This, in total, makes the article (or the section in question) NPOV. Please refer to Wikipedia help pages to find out what that is. Now, a reader who is unfamiliar with the subject, can compare two POVs and form a balanced opinion. //Your addition was not required\\ This is your private POV. //it was very poorly written\\ I'm sorry, the style of your additions doesn't make me think I should worry about your appraisal of my style. //Humiliating none the less\\ Never meant to humiliate you. Latreia 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charismatic_movement&diff=prev&oldid=151701712 - clearly shows the merits of your writing. "whick in effect equates to anti-denominational and tends to instill a spiritual superiority of its's memebers . Applause. Latreia 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. This is even better - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charismatic_movement&diff=prev&oldid=151708838 - changing from right (remarkable) to wrong (remarkeable) spelling. Applauding even more. And this level of education tries to make himself an exegete... Latreia 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify with regard to the humiliation. I feel humiliated for you. Wait a few days, come back and read your posts again. Absolutley humiliating. Now, if you are a man, I suggest you keep silence and go sit with the women. God wants men to lead his church. If you are a woman, then I would no sooner accept instruction from you than I would a child. Particularly in spiritual matters. You bore me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk)

God bless you, poor soul. I guess you will get to heaven, but will be mightily surprised, once there. Have a nice day. Latreia 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ROFL...!!! Is that the only rebuttal you have ? I can't stop laughing ! What should I expect from someone who receives nourishment from the "sugar water" of Joyce Meyers teaching. Allow me to give you a bible lesson you will never hear Joyce meyer teach. Man was created in Gods image. Woman was not created in Gods image. see; 1 cor. 11:7 Chew on that for a while...hehehe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 21:12, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal? I have no intention of entering a discussion with a person who can't correctly spell simple words while being presumably a native speaker of English (I myself am not), and has no understanding of netiquette, or what an encyclopedia is, and which places are appropriate for a flood and which are not; and is, as I see now, opposed to Joyce Meyer on the basis of her gender. I don't believe such a discussion will be valuable and doubt the ability of the opponent to understand simple concepts. My gender is none of your business, the word Latreia is Greek and means "ministry". I am ending this flood here, even if you choose to continue. Bye. I have no intention of feeding a troll. Latreia 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. I don't consider you an opponent. personal attack removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 21:28, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

If you continue making personal attacks, you will be blocked. Comment on content, comment on ideas, but do not comment on other editors. Thank you. · jersyko talk 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Both paragraphs added to the existing section on Prosperity violate Wikipedia:No original research, by offering the individual editor's interpretation of scripture, and only using the scripture itself as evidence. Opinions or interpretations should be proffered with citations to published sources; anytime you feel the need to use the phrases "some say" or "others view," that should be a hint that a reputable source should be named as verification, and to avoid using weasel words. Happy editing...-RoBoTam^ice 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is probably the best solution. Being a new user, I was reluctant to bluntly delete a paragraph I found questionable, so I tried to make it more balanced. Probably shouldn't have, in the first place :). Latreia 01:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RoBoTam^ice I disagree with you Robotam. I understand why we can't add opinion or personal interpretation to the page, but what can't scripture explain scripture? Gabriello14:58, 09 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me the evidence

I am not going to spend any more time making edits and additions to the subject(s) I have engage over the past several days. I have other venues at my disposal wherein I can exposit my opinions and observations. In conclusion I will say this; Christians are just as easily "brain washed" as any other individual. I have observed and contemplated "word of faith", "charismatic", "five fold ministry" "non-denominational" christians etc. etc. for twenty five years and I see no evidence to their claims. They are told they can exercise the power and authority which Christ granted exclusively to his apostles and disciples. Most are nothing more than "common believers" who attempt to exercise apostolic authority and power. I could write several pages of text regarding my observations but, I will leave this forum with this challenge to the aforementioned. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE ! If miracles were taking place. Healings and all of the power of the Holy Ghost was indeed being made manifest where is the evidence. In contrast, when Christ or one of his apostle / disciples performed a miracle it was not only verifiable but even the unbeliever was convinced of the credibility of the miracle. see; "........What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it." Acts 4:16 kjv. This one significant criteria is lacking with the aforementioned. But the most outrageous and repulsive aspect of the adherents to the aforementioned is that they commonly will deny scripture which in effect denies Christ, in defense of a perverted teacher, preacher, pastor etc. Deliberately and maliciously perverting the scripture but at the same time claiming they love Jesus. Hypocrites !.....Show me the evidence ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 18:28, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

What is this, a blog? Where are the citations? Dbcjr (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think YOU ought to show evidence that somewhere in the Bible God revoked the gifts of healings and miracles outlined in the epistles.

Some folks INVENT a doctrine of dispensationalism that cannnot be found anywhere in scripture, and people are supposed to believe it because they write a few books? No thanks, I believe the Bible.

No, EVERYONE did not believe the miracles. Many of the self righteous religious leaders, the pharisees did not. Remember the questioning of the blind man? 

A woman told the people in her town that Jesus told her entire life story without knowing her and the people believed her. What evidence in the world was there of that? I could go on.  In Jesus' time people believed things that there was absolutely no proof for whatsoever, it was a far more superstitious time and there were no atheists.  

You can believe whatever you want friend, it won't effect anyone but you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.146.137 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Are "word faith" preachers more spiritual than the apostles..?

It is noteworthy that the Jerusalem church of the first century which comprised Peter, James the brother of Jesus and John, pillars of the new testament church were poor. So poor in fact that Paul made it a significant part of his ministry to take collections from the gentile churches to relieve the poor in Jerusalem. see: Romans 15:26, Galatians 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 How can any christian with any common sense reconcile "word faith" doctrine with the reality concerning the circumstances of the 1st century church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 15:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Are "Word of faith" preachers more spiritual than the Apostles?

The answer to this is that Word of Faith preachers would indeed be more spiritual than the FIRST Apostles if they were able to live as prosperously as they do now under a local government of religious elders that brutally persecuted and killed members of the church wherever they found them, as Paul's old lifestyle had him doing. Afterward, Paul had to live a life in continual flight being let out of windows in baskets and all types of things. he explains all of this in 1 Corinthians 4 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day."

So according to Paul's description the first Christians were wealthy but the Apostles could not be because they could not even plant roots, they gave up everything for Christ, and to do so in this way is an honorable thing. However this is not what traditional poverty preaching Christianity has faced. By the way, did you read what the Book of Mark said about those two poor disciples you mentioned the day they were called by Christ? "And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. 20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.20.235 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for debating the merits of the religious doctrine. Take it elsewhere. Phiwum 13:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have argued a similar vein with WOF advocates. I think it only fair, however, that WOF advocates do not accept that the Apostles were poor - or Jesus, for that matter. Jesus had the ability to get needs met both for Himself and for others at anytime, e.g., gold coin in the fish's mouth to pay taxes, feeding 5,000 men, their wives, and their children with 5 loaves and 2 fish, then having 12 baskets left over. They also site wealthy friends that anointed His feet with oil that cost a year's wages, etc. The ability to meet every need in abundance doesn't seem like poverty to them. Dbcjr (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the New Testament, there's a reason Jesus could find money in a fish's mouth or feed 5000 people with two fish and five loaves...He's God. Scarletsmith (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The fruit of the Spirit...?

Bishop Thomas W. Weeks III a word of faith charismatic pastor-evangelist was charged with beating and stomping his wife Juanita bynum who also is a word of faith minister. Here is the a.p.i. story on yahoo; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re/televangelist_assault;_ylt=AgYOR6x4DmBO6DwIWSaKShJH2ocA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardly relevant to this article. Phiwum 13:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, shall we talk about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? Or how about what Anglicans did to Catholics in England, or Protestants did slaves in the South (Southern Baptists???)? Name me one religion and let me ask the same sort of question (Moors invading the Holy Land and into Europe. Oh, Zen and Buddhism are peaceful, right? Think again. Who developed the martial arts?

My point? There are bad apples in every bunch. I'll leave it at that. Dbcjr (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaunita Bynum is more a Pentacostal minister, I know her roots and am familiar with her old church. However many Pentecostals have obviously accepted Word Of faith teachings, and Pentecostalism is it's origin ofcourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.20.235 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

below moved from top EvanCarroll (talk)

I am writing due to the fact the language used to explain the differences between Word of Faith/Prosperity movement is not strong enough to compare with other charismatic movements. The four square, full gospel, A/G, Church of God from Cleveland, are distinctly different from this movement. As a student at an A/G college, and having family in the school (Rhema) for Word of Faith movement I’d like to note the differences based on my experiences. Faith: the view of faith is that of a guilt trip, you never have enough in the prosperity movement. Lack of faith prevents things from happening. This is in contrast with other charismatic/Pentecostal groups, that believe we all have a measure of faith, and that “with the faith of a mustard seed”. Prayer: the view of prayer and requests to God are very demanding very rarely appealing to the nature of God, or that he foreknows everything. This is a very stark difference to other groups who do not demand that God provide healings, or amounts of money, but they appeal to the will and nature of God, and the fact He knows what the possibilities of our future our and allow Him to lead the people. Focus: the focus of the prosperity movement is monetary and healing, it is hype and that God is their ‘ATM’ this is an over arching theme in their movement, visit a service, the sermon will surely be on money or healing, not living holy, or practical ways to follow God. It seems to be my experience that it’s all about what you can get out of God, instead of what God is worthy of having from us. It is biblical that the focus come off man, and be about that we were created to worship Him, even if He did nothing for us, He is still worthy of our worship, the prosperity/word of faith movement (which I consider synonyms) skews this Biblical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.31.5 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The observations made above seem pejorative to me, not at all an objective assessment. However, I do agree there are significant differences between the groups to warrant independent articles. Dbcjr (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hello all. I've cleaned up this talk page in accord with WP:BOLD. Lots of subjective demagoguery going on that had to be removed as it was getting in the way of the discourse. I need someone who is offended by the current content, to create a bullet list of what they want done. I'm not a Christian, and my bias is to getting the NPOV removed in the least contentious format, yet I don't see the justification for it here. I'm so lost as to who is ranting and who wants what I've given up. Please entitle the section ==NPOV Clarification== I'll add expert theology template to this article too. thanks EvanCarroll (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

do not digress on what is mainstream Christianity

This article should mention where the beliefs and practices differ from mainstream Christianity. It should not repeated common Christian beliefs. Andries (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to look at non-English articles to understand what it is all about. The incomprensible and verbose version of the English Wikipedia is difficult to wade thru. Andries (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Eahh, I'm trying to find how they differ from other denominations in the article, f.ex. the never pray to Jesus according to Hagin's teaching, but instead (aggressively antagonistically) demand from Satan, because according to Hagin's teaching (a vision of his), Jesus surrendered his ability to make wonders to his adherents. This is in stark contrast to Christianity. A list of points where they deviate would be profitable. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it! It is in section Critics paragraph four. A short list in the intro would be profitable however, instead of the current biased one claiming that WoF are unique in their emphasizing "speaking, stating, or confessing verses" from the Bible. As I have experienced, most Christians speaks, states, and confesses verses in the Bible a little now and then, but they don't walk around bugging their neighbors by doing this all the time. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin Peters

This Justin Peters stuff is likely self promotional. This guy is not nearly as important as the others mentioned. Theriddles (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not hardly. Peters has appeared on news programs discussing word-faith pastors from such "important" names as NBC's DATELINE, CBC's WITNESS, and a number of independent documentaries in the US and overseas. His presentation on WoF pastors and their doctrines is immensely interesting (I do suggest you look it up if you haven't seen it), and he comes at it from a unique perspective: As a disabled person, he was taken to a WoF service as a teen by friends and "slain in the spirit" to "cure" his cerebral palsy. When he could not get back to his feet without assistance, his father was asked if the family was "properly tithing" to a healing ministry, then told that such giving would raise his son's chances of being healed substantially. As a disabled person myself, I too have received this kind of "advice" and find it horribly insulting; the fact that Peters took on refuting this doctrine as his life's mission is incredibly inspiring to me. In closing, just because you may not have heard of a minister does not make his "stuff" self-promotional. I highly recommend researching him if you haven't. Scarletsmith (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was wealthy?

Where's the citation for this? Jesus was born in a dirty animal stable and died in a trash heap. He able to live 3 years without working because he was homeless and lived off the land (Matthew 12:1). If nobody has objections, I'm going to fix this to stop giving these wicked, hellbound sinners an excuse to love their sin while claiming to be "Christian".

Luke 9:58: "Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head." Samboy220 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what there is to fix. The article says that some WoF pastors claim that Jesus was wealthy. We need a citation showing that some pastor says that, but that's all. It does not matter what the Bible says, since the article does not (and should not) claim that Jesus is wealthy or that he is poor. This article is about Word of Faith, but it is not an evaluation of the claims. (Of course, if there is a notable refutation of the claim that Jesus is wealthy, then a reference could be made.)

Now, we really should add some citations for this claim! Phiwum (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I see some of the claims in the article are far too straightforwardly stated. For instance, "Examples of God's people being financially prosperous throughout the Bible form a strong basis for financial success among God's people today." I removed that paragraph. Phiwum (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This section continually takes events out of context. Jesus was born in a stable as is recited every Christmas BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ROOM IN THE INN, and Mary was going into labor and had to give birth to the child somewhere.

When Jesus made the "Fox have Holes" statement he was not walking around Nazareth, he was ministering to people abroad in a different land. If you live in Texas and you go to Oklahoma you won't have anywhere to lay your head; well, unless you get a hotel/Inn room, and those are far more abundant in 21st century Democratic Capitalist America than in the 1st century Mediterranean world under Ancient Rome.

Jesus sported a pretty high quality coat. The Romans were the conquerers, the jews were the conquered, but Roman Soldiers saw Jesus' coat while he was being crucified and starting gambling to see who would own it.

"Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be" John 19: 23-24

"Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.20.235 (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I find it SHOCKING that this heresy of Jesus' supposed "wealth" continues to be propagated when even the most elementary reading of the Gospel disproves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. For instance, this business about Jesus' expensive clothes...

"Look, Jesus had to be rich. See, the Bible says the Romans decided to hold a lottery to see who would get that fancy coat Jesus was wearing at His cruxifiction!" The interpretation of John 19:23-24 as "proof" that Jesus was "rich" is not only ridiculous, it's a blasphemous twisting of scripture. Of course Jesus was wearing an expensive coat. It could even be said it was a coat fit for a king! Just one problem, though: That coat wasn't His. It was instead a crimson (some sources also say purple; the red dyes of the day occasionally appeared purple in certain light) robe put on Him by King Herod on the night of His arrest. Herod was mocking Jesus by putting a royal robe on Him because of the charge brought by the Jewish Priests that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Let's look at Luke's account of the night of Jesus' arrest. Consider the following, from Luke 23:8-11, after Pontius Pilate sends Jesus to be judged by King Herod (that is, to be judged by Jewish authorities rather than Roman authorities):

8 ¶And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him. 9 Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing. 10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. 11 And Herod with his men of war set Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate. (emphasis by commentator)

So, Jesus' expensive robe is clearly not His robe, but rather a garment Herod put on Him to mock Him (Luke 23:11). The fact that the Roman soldiers cast lots over it was just one of many Messianic Prophesies that Jesus' arrest, trial, punishment, and crucifixion fulfilled. I find it odd that WoF followers latch onto "Jesus wore expensive clothes because John 19:23-24 says so" without actually reading those verses in their context:

23 ¶Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. 24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

The middle section of John 19:24 explains to the reader that the reason the Roman troops were casting lots over Jesus' coat (really Herod's coat, remember?) was to fulfill Scripture, to fulfill a Messianic Prophesy from Psalm 22, specifically verse 18:

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

In summary, just because the Roman soldiers wanted to hold a lottery to see who would get that expensive coat Jesus was wearing is not proof that "Jesus was rich". If anything, it proves the opposite: Herod was so completely and utterly unimpressed by Jesus when he met Him (Luke 23:8-11) that he put a "gorgeous" robe on Him as a way of mocking the charge that Jesus was somehow "King of the Jews". This isn't "Original Research", it's the only conclusion one can reach from a truly objective reading of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest, trial, punishment, and crucifixion. Scarletsmith (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' words were also take out of context

It is easy to take statements out of context or amplify their meaning. Jesus Himself knew this all too well. He said the following statement concerning His body, using the temple as an analogy:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. John 2:19-22

At the time, nobody understood the statement, but the Pharisees did not even try to understand. Instead, they chose to use their own false interpretation of the statement in an attempt to discredit Him. In humility of heart they could easily have asked Him about it. Instead, this is what the Pharisees said at the so-called trial:

Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent. Mark 14:57-59

Imagine a book about the life of Jesus written by a Pharisee of His time. What kind of distortions would it have? What kind of wild accusations would it be filled with? This is exactly what many of these books against Word of Faith are like. FaithSupporter (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

- this section was not even left on the discussion board for over a day before being copy/pasted directly into the article. its tone is highly unprofessional, it is an outright attempt to justify WoF doctrine by some off-beat analogy that really is neither here nor there, and adds nothing to further explain the doctrine(s) itself. on the contrary, it really lowers the standard of the article overall and therefore, since its author decided to unilaterally add this bit to the detriment of the whole article, i am unilaterally removing it. the tone should be encyclopedic, not like a ranting email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.73.99 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (con't) - looks like someone beat me to it, perhaps the author himself mistakenly posted that bit in the article instead of the discussion only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.73.99 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is basically an argument whose logical conclusion is that nothing that jesus preached can be understood for sure because he spoke in a cryptic manner. Why would this apply to Word of faith teachers in particular? Why wouldn't it apply to all of Christianity? Who knows what Jesus ever meant when he spoke?

By the way did you notice that THE BIBLE ITSELF does indeed explain what Jesus meant when he said what he did about the temple? That is because God wants HIS CHILDREN to know what he is saying. 

This is a horrible example because the discussion is the written word, not what a pharisee heard two thousand years ago, and your example only illustrates that the Bible IS clear.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.20.235 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, context is extremely important. The WoF movement's misinterpretation of these passages can clearly be seen when viewed in context. Psalm 82 is a short psalm - here it is in the King James version (no longer under copyright):

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and the fatherless: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The John 10:34 reference to Jesus' words must also be viewed in context. It's better to start at John 10:19, but here it is from 10:30 to 10:36 [Jesus' words (red letters) are in quotes]: 30 'I and my Father are one.' 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them. 'Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?' 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?' 35 'If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken'; 36 'Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?'

Also, please note that Jesus said 'I am THE Son of God' (God's only begotten Son, not A Son of God). In the psalm, the reference to 'gods' is indeed seen in the context of judgment, so the meaning of 'magistrates' seems to apply. Jesus' response to the Pharisees can be seen as pointing out the hypocrisy of their judgments, not anything near declaring men to be equivalent, in any way, to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.147.55 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tone of Article and Citations

Just my two cents...but:

I feel like in some places this article is trying to use the Bible as a way to cite Word of Faith teachings. Instead, we need to be citing sources that show that these teachings come from Word of Faith, and that they are notable to the movement. That said, if there are verses that *are* important to the movement, then of course we should probably include them. I'll try to explain what I mean:

Let's say I'm writing an article about John Doe, who believes peanuts are awesome:

• It is not my responsibility to cite references to support his claim that peanuts are awesome.
• If I just put the statement peanuts are awesome into the article, that's not an encyclopedic tone, that's just point of view :)
• If I say John Doe thinks peanuts are awesome. Peanuts have a high nutritional value, and have many uses. that's better, but still the wrong tone - it's making assertions about peanuts when the article is only about John Doe.
• It's better if I say: John Doe believes peanuts are "awesome." As evidence, he often refers to their high nutritional value and their many practical uses. It's important to be clear that "John Doe says", "John Doe believes", "John Doe argues", etc. That way, we aren't put in the position of finding evidence to support his claims; we just let the article describe who John Doe is and why he's so passionate about peanuts. See what I mean?

So if we *do* cite verses, can we try to have these things?

• The verse itself. (e.g. John 3:16 speaks of being "born again".)
• How the verse is used (e.g. "is used by many born-again Christians to support the idea that a radical change of identity is needed")
• A source showing that the verse is important to the movement. (e.g. Born Again Christianity, John Doe, published by Doe & Doe Publishing House, 2009)

Without this source, it seems like original research to me.

I tried to clean up the Origins section, but I would like some other editors to look over it. I feel like it needs another pair of eyes... but what it really needs are sources. I agree it sounds like an argument Kenyon might use, but did Kenyon actually use it? That's what's important. If it is this foundational to Word of Faith teaching, then it needs to have a source showing that. Granted, Word of Faith is an amorphous term, so we probably have to turn to sources about individual preachers (such as Kenyon). Thoughts? Joren (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The question about citing verses vs. citing someone's writings is the difference between primary and secondary sources discussed in the Wikipedia guideline No original research - Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In discussing Christian subjects, it will be inevitable that the primary source of Bible passages will be cited, because the Bible is so foundational to Christianity. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, secondary or tertiary sources are needed for the interpretation, analysis, explanation, or evaluation of the passages in order to establish notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. On the other hand, a primary source may be used to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge. However, appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and the Wikipedia guidelines are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. In Christianity, there are conflicting doctrines and streams of thought, and so the choice of secondary and tertiary sources should be part of the discussion, and sometimes even the article itself should mention these choices, what's in, and what's out. Obankston (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, since that confounded me: the primary sources in the Origins section is Kenyon. Here the sources should be primary. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus does not hate people

Quite correct! But please sign your posts with ~~~~, so that also the Wikipedia community will love you! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Paramount doctrine that guides the Word of Faith Movement

I find that the most of the attempts to criticize and to define the WOF movement fall short of what the WOF is about. The second paragraph in the article statement that WOF "emphasizes speaking, stating, or confessing verses found in the Bible" is an observance that falls short of what the WOF emphasizes. "Confession" is a doctrine found in WOF, but is not its emphasis.

The guiding principle of the WOF is found in its title, “Word” (the Bible, the Holy Scriptures) and “Faith” – the substance of things expected; the evidence of things unseen. WOF is founded on a philosophy or method regarding the study of scriptures. All of its beliefs and doctrines are subject to the scrutiny of this one philosophy. WOF teaches above all else (above ‘prosperity’, above ‘confession of the word’ etc.) and subjects all doctrine to the philosophy that God’s Word is final authority. WOF’s philospophy is that the Christian lifestyle is one of a discipline that recognizes, studies and obeys the written Word of God; honoring the Bible by recognizing it as the highest authority of doctrine and lifestyle.

“If you get out beyond the Word of God, you have no basis for faith—and you will get into trouble. It seems to me people ought to have a little sense. In other words, I do not understand how some people can go around spouting off things, endeavoring to believe and calling it faith when it is merely presumption and folly. Christians need to have enough sense to know where faith will work and where it won’t. Never get out beyond the Word of God. You get into trouble when you move beyond the Word of God … But if you get out beyond that, you are out in presumption or foolishness” Article: "Do God's promises cover what you want ?" Kenneth E Hagin [1]

Kenneth E Hagin taught that doctrine was only established "In the mouth of two or three witnesses". WOF draws its doctrine from exhaustive study of the scripture even to the extent of of challenging orthodoxed religion, tradition and authority. WOF doctrine and sermons are characterised by the extenesive exegesis of scripture, in keeping with the WOF philosophy that the Bible is the highest authority of doctrine.

WOF’s guiding philosophy that the Word of God is the highest in authority is the paramount belief. Its leaders emphasize the individual’s responsibility towards this philosophy irrespective of the views, beliefs, interpretations, hope, or dreams of others, experiences- natural or supernatural. WOF believes Christians must take the responsibility for themselves to know and understand scripture; not blindly believe, but by a individuals' study of the scriptures for oneself to confirm or refute the validity of what is taught.

WOF ministers continually challenge their congregations to not accept their instruction without studying the doctrine out in scripture for themselves. In comparison to other religions and denominations, this is an unusual challange. As others typicially guard dogmatically their doctine with treatenings, such as the excommunication of the challanger. WOF is unthreatened by such challanges to its beliefs.

span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.207.156 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and for the source [2], but most of those assertments doesn't distinguish WOF from any other denomination or religion. I believe from f.ex. [3] that the article is somewhat accurate in defining WOF from the Pentecostalism it was opposing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about Confession

Much of the confusion about WOF seems to surround the doctrine of confession. It may be that perhaps it is because many, within and without the WOF movement, use the word confession in a somewhat general and sloppy manner. They confuse confession with meditation, and even with just casual speaking.

Its best to understand first what confession is and is not, as taught by WOF.

The term confession literally means 'to say the same thing', In other words, what someone says with consistency. This is certainly not a haphazard or wishful 'blab it and grab it' philosophy. as some have attributed erroneously to WOF doctrine. WOF teaches that "Your confession locates you" for "Out of the abundance of the heart, your mouth speaks". It is not a 'put on'. People will always say what they believe. WOF just emphasizes for people to practice saying what they believe and not to let go of what one believes under the pressure of circumstance or the 'trying of your faith'.

The use of the term is often used in teachings where the word 'meditation' would better suffice. To meditate means 'to mutter'. It is simply speaking to learn, or to ponder about something. Mediation, just like confession, may involve speaking. (We might use the term 'meditate' to emphasize 'in thought', not accurately but acceptably)

A differentation needs to be made in the minds of bible instrutors, and those that hear between the terms - speaking, confessing and meditating. They are three different terms which if misused will produce only confusion. Confession is not meditation. Meditation is not confession. Both are speaking, but neither are just casual speaking, but a purposeful practice.

"Confession of Faith" is not to be confused with just "positive words,” as proposed by Norman Vincent Peal. "The Power of Positive Thinking" is not to be misconstrued with the "Word of Faith". While certainly speaking one's faith, if truly faith, is a positive confession, not all positive confessions are founded in scripture. Word of faith never proposes confession, meditation, thought or speaking that is so presumptuous that it lacks a Biblical foundation.--98.85.164.19 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.247.160 (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

On this talk page we discuss the article, and so your criticism of the article is welcome, but we cannot do much with your private thoughts unless you provide WoF-sources, so: "sources please?!" Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is extraordinarily, if cleverly, lopsided in favor of Word of Faith theology. Every criticism is answered with a "criticism of the criticism." All conclusions are ultimately positive. This is a work of advertisement, not reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.120.51.39 (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)