Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | gracefull | 65477 | ||
Ed, Hank... If Hank H's statement "E.W Kenyon majored in metaphysics." is not true, as I believe Hank stated in an earlier post.. Why would you not be bothered that he so comfortably accused (defamed) a fellow human being without ANY substantiating proof? Hank, even you who do not claim to called to expose heresy knows this is not true... This does not upset your confidence in his motives? Do you not realize motive is critical in interpretaion? Your sister in the Lord |
||||||
2 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | EdB | 65536 | ||
Graceful Please tell me where Hank Hanegraaff said Kenyon majored in Metaphysics in college. I have searched all references to Kenyon in Hank's books. In Christianity in Crisis and I did find this statement, "Kenyon, the real father of the modern-day Faith Movememnt, "majored" in metaphysics." (Emphasis not mine) Christianity in Crisis published by Harvest House Publishing 1993 pg 67. This is not saying he majored in metaphysics in college, but rather Kenyon's philosophy majored in Metaphysics. As to his education Hank Hanegraaff states, “There is little doubt that New Thought metaphysics had an enormous impact on Kenyon. The evidence from his works, from eyewitnesses, and from external sources provide ample testimony to his cultic connections. Since a number of individuals have already established the cultic origins of the Faith movement via Kenyon, I will not belabor the point here.2 However, I think it is worth mentioning that Kenyon attended Emerson College of Oratory, which was a virtual hotbed of New Thought metaphysics.3 Christianity in Crisis published by Harvest House Publishing 1993 pg 331 Notice please the numbers 2 and 3 they are footnotes and I included the references. I think you will have to agree this is pretty impressive list of people that stated Kenyon was wrapped up in the Metaphysics besides Hanegraaff. 2. Notable works include Charles Farah, “A Critical Analysis: The ‘Roots’ and ‘Fruits of Faith Formula Theology” (paper presented at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, November 1980)James M. Kinnebrew, The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive Confession: A Historical, Exegetical and Theological Critique (doctoral dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary1988); D.R. McConnell, The Kenyon Connection: A Theological and Historical Analysis of the Cultic Orgins of the Faith Movement. (master’s thesis, Oral Roberts University, 1982) and A Different Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1988); H. Terris Neuman, An Analysis of the Sources of the Charismatic Teaching of Positive Confession (unpublished paper, Wheaton Graduate School, 1980); “Cultic Origins of Word-Faith Theology Within the Charis-matic Movement” (Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 12, 1, Spring 1990:3-55); and Dale H. Simmons, A Theological and Historical Analysis of Kenneth E. Hagin’s Claim to Be a Prophet (master’s thesis, Oral Roberts University, 1985). 3. See McConnell, A Different Gospel, 35-43. Christianity in Crisis published by Harvest House Publishing 1993 pg 407-408 All we have is the testimony of witnesses and the evidence of his fruit since Kenyon died in 1948. The testimony of the witnesses verify his philosophy was metaphysical. The evidence of his fruit shows he had metaphysical thoughts. Everyone can't be wrong. I think the proof is strong enough to conclude Kenyon was very much influenced by metaphysical philosophy EdB |
||||||
3 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | gracefull | 65575 | ||
Good morning Hank. I noted two pf the papers your reccomended and will try to find and read them. The statement Hank made that E. W. Kenyon 'majored' in metaphysics is either on page 61 or 63. I do not have the book here...conveniently preempting any of the above "proof' which would influence the reader to assume the next statements prove his earlier assertion. This is wrong,and highlights my point that Hank wrote his book in a more sensationalistic fassion rather than taking the teachings themselves and challenging them scripturally. Why don't you see a problem with that? You said "All we have is the testimony of witnesses and the evidence of his fruit since Kenyon died in 1948, the testimony of witnesses verify his philosophy as metaphysical. The evidence of his fruit shows he had metaphysical thoughts. Everyone can't be wrong. I think the proof os strong enough to to conclude Kenyon was very much influenced by metaphysical Philosophy." Here is the problem I have with what you are saying... All we have are testimony of eye witnesses and the evidence of his fruit.. I submit that we have his teachings in his own words to compare to scripture. Any conclusion based on the testimony of men is very weak in light of scripture. Did not the Pharasees have 'eye-witnesses against Jesus and against the ressurection?(the soldiers were paid to say they fell asleep and the body was stolen. Then we have the apostles eyewitness account.. one mans word against another and the apostles were mere fishermen testifying against the entire Jewish religious community. What made the difference? Was it the testimony? Or was it the Holy Spirit confirming the testimony of the Apostles? Fruit.. is this E.W.Kenyon's fruit you are speaking of or the fruit of others? Are you to be judged for the fruit of your students or the fruit of you congregation? Certainly some will manifest good fruit but this is based solely on their own walk with God. Are we speaking of his fruit or the fruit of others? Everyone can't be wrong ---These are not everyone, they are opposers. To have a fair hearing you have to give the defense a fair shot. I believe Kenyon's own writings, His own study comparative to scripture that 'without doubt' proves what you say. Let me explain something about myself and this may help you understand where I am coming from. I grew up in a small town and recognized the hypocrosy of the local religious people at a very young age. I came to the conclusion that their words disguised their motives most of the time, so had little regard for the words of people. At the crisis turning point of my life, I came to the conclusion that God and His Word were the only truth and God had only one ulterior motive, His love for me. I made the decision to trust Him totally and believe what His Word spoke to my heart by the Holy Spirit. For me, everything else is superficial. I did not come to believe what I believe based on my opinion of E.W. Kenyon or Kenneth Copeland, or John Hagee. I heard their teachings, and searched the scriptures and believe what the Holy Spirit has revealed to my spirit as truth. These men are mere men and all of them, including Hank and Charles Farah and James M. Kinnebrew are fallable and only as reliable as their motives which only God knows totally. We assume we know the motives of others but God alone knows the heart. Some with the purist sweetest actions can have very impure motives. Man judges by outward appearance, God looks at the heart. (this does not speak to mere physical attributes). You and Hank have tried to convince from from the writing of men against other men and the writings of Hank H are biased because nowhere is the accused represented. This is why I like the website I reccomended because this person has taken the accusations and laid them side by side to scripture rather than trying to convince by choosing incomplete statements of the accused. Rather than the old YES IT IS-NO IT ISN'T approach. This is why you and Hank and I have had an impass on this. The very first statements were not, "we don't agree with these teachings but let's take a look at the teachings and compare scripture for scripture." Instead you both took the stance of a bully saying 'this is cultish and they do not serve the same God we serve and they are wrong because Hank and others have said so.' This is the attitude of the mainstream denominations. We are your leaders so follow us without us showing you from the scriptures why, and sadly many have followed their leaders blindly because they were to lazy or felt incompetent to search the truth for themselves. Someone in this thread said it all.. a true Berean. A leader/child of God who concludes their beliefs but is unwilling or unable to teach why from scripture should remain silent on a subject. Not bring division in the body by accusing the brethren. Continued on nest post.. Your sister in Christ |
||||||
4 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | EdB | 65578 | ||
Graceful Did you read what I wrote? I specifically listed the reference to "Majored" on Pg 67. Secondly if you notice this list of references in footnote 2 you will see the objectors come from nearly every camp, including the healing movement and Pentecostal. I can not think of a more objective group of people. Can you? Thirdly I and many others have been producing scripture that refute the Word of Faith Teaching. What more can we do. We have provided witnesses, we have provided testimony, we have provided scripture. Even Kenyon's own works "New Creation Realities" testify against him. As you said we are at an impasse, you have no desire for the truth you only want to believe basically unscriptural teaching is correct. Take any of the verses you use in support of WOF and read them in context. None will support within context that God has to do what WOF says He does. Can’t you see any religion, teaching, philosophy or belief that says God has to perform a certain way violates God’s sovereignty? I pray your eyes and your spirit will be opened to the truth. EdB |
||||||