Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Truth | John 7:17 | ngkh | 167395 | ||
Can I assume then that what you have posted is not from your experience nor have you read any of his books and yet you have much against his teaching based on articles given by others. That is one Christian sharing I have yet to comprehend. As I said earlier, I just read his books and I am not his followers nor involved in his movement. What I shared was 1Cor chapters 1-4. But since the mentioned of Hagins...... I wonder if cartoons will come out next. |
||||||
2 | Truth | John 7:17 | kalos | 167413 | ||
"If more details in the way of documentation are required, or if some analysis of the biblical passages used by the 'faith' teachers to support their views is needed, these can be found in a variety of materials..." ____________________ Word of faith movement 'Concerning the teaching known variously as “positive confession,” the “faith” teaching, and the “prosperity” doctrine, some of the best known American television evangelists subscribe either partly or wholly to this teaching. Its chief representatives today seem to be Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, Paul and Jan Crouch, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Jesse Duplantis, and Marilyn Hickey, though there are many other evangelists, teachers, and writers promoting the teaching. 'It is CRI’s considered opinion that this teaching, at least in its complete form as expressed by the above people, is at best extremely aberrational and at worse cultic. (We use the term “aberrational” to refer to teaching which is decidedly unbiblical and damaging to authentic Christian faith, but which is not quite so heretical that its adherents must be considered non-Christians.) In the past, CRI has attempted to meet with some of these people and dialogue with them concerning their teachings, but most of them have refused. 'In brief, the teachings of these men may be summarized as follows: God created man in “God’s class,” as “little gods,” with the potential to exercise the “God kind of faith” in calling things into existence and living in opportunity, however, by rebelling against God in the Garden and taking upon ourselves Satan’s nature. To correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (thus taking upon Himself Satan’s nature), went to Hell, was “born again,” rose from the dead with God's nature again, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we should be successful in every area of our lives. To be in debt, then, or be sick, or (as is often taught) be left by one’s spouse, and not to have these problems go away by “claiming” God’s promises, shows a lack of faith. 'While certain aspects of the above doctrine may vary from teacher to teacher, the general outline remains the same in each case. Perhaps the above summary will be enough for some readers to convince them that the doctrine of the “faith” teachers is unbiblical. If more details in the way of documentation are required, or if some analysis of the biblical passages used by the “faith” teachers to support their views is needed, these can be found in a variety of materials, many of which are available from CRI.' (www.equip.org/search/) Have I read Hagin's books? No, I haven't. But I have seen and heard Kenneth Hagin both on TV and in person. "Articles given by others" often include bibliographical citations/references to Hagin's teachings and writings. You'll need a better argument than the lame one that denies that Hagin wrote the things he wrote. --Kalos |
||||||
3 | Truth | John 7:17 | ngkh | 167549 | ||
I believe you have mistook me as a follower or member of the movement. I am not. I just read some of his books. That is all. I am not in a position to draw a conclusion let alone defend him. But...... in a hypotical defamation case. In US laws I wonder if the defence of justification hold water if I tell the judge that my view of so and so is true because I read some articles which was written by some people that I got from the net which also include bibligraphical citations / references which I have not personally seen nor read the book. Even if it is true. I would appreciate if you would explain to me the whole chapter of Romans 14. I am not here to debate. Just felt a bit sad that it comes from a learned brother/sister. |
||||||