Word of Faith--Contexts

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Dave,

I wholeheartedly agree that the promises of God are yea and amen and that we may
claim all the promises according to God's word.  It is the extension of your
theology into unscriptural areas of supposition that I am opposed to.  I have
said, now a number of times, that if WoF teachers taught simple faith, I'd
shout 'Amen!' along with you, but their doctrines, though superficially
appealing, ultimately prostitute Biblical truths and principles concerning
faith.

Dave, it seems that you never comment on any particular point which I set
forth.  You simply argue that there is not enough context.  I have provided
proper citation.  If anyone so desires, they may research the complete documents
and decide for themselves whether the statements are decontextually misrepre-
senting the ideologies of these theologians.

It would be fine for you to say that you cannot go about defending their state-
ments if you did not earlier cite them as authorities on faith and God's Word.
If you did not claim 'Bro. Hagin' for your own, and you did not call yourself
Word of Faith, then we could argue your own persuasions and convictions; how-
ever, when you have clearly contextualised yourself within the frame of this
heresy, you must either defend it or admit its fallacies--neither of which you
have done or seem willing at all to do.

I would like to qualify some points I have made.  I do believe that proper
attitude is important when petitioning God.  Our faith has a great deal to do
with our capacity to believe God for the impossible.  I do believe in the
reality of God's promises and His activity in our lives that works for the
good of them that love Him.  I also believe in His will that is not always
clear and may not always be apprehendable.  God's thoughts are not my thoughts.
He is above all, transcendent and possesses prerogatives that are not my own.

Concerning variations in Oneness churches.  Sure, I am aware that many One-
ness Pentecostals abide by their own convictions, but we are sovereign churches.
I do not think you will find these variations threatening to our continuing,
united fellowship with one another.  It seems that you are using this discussion
as a capital opportunity to bring into question the ultimate infrastructure of
the UPC (sly on your part).  I would not squabble if you quoted one of these
perspectives.  As part of a large organisation, there must be a degree of
interacceptance and tolerance that allows for our differences whilst working
toward the unity of the faith.  Those sorts of more individual convictions
are hardly comparable or akin to the great theological blunders of the WoF
teachers.  None of us are calling Adam 'God manifested in the flesh.'  We are
not arguing that each born-again believer is God incarnate.  These issues
seem much more critical and salvational than whether you take Welch's or
Sanbriggi for communion, whether the toes of your shoes are opened or closed,
or whether you are married with a watch or a ring.  I can speak from the ultra-
conservative corner and say that I embrace all of those who love the Apostolic
message of salvation, Oneness and a separated life.  These smaller issues are
personal and allowable.

Again, I would ask you what common ground you think you are trying to establish
here.  In my mind, you have come to the list with an agenda, hidden or un-
realised.  Whenever the opportunity arises, you take sniper shots at the UPC
('my boss laid me off who was UPC and did not like me attending an Independent
church'), etc.  So far, we have not established our commonality but maximised
our distinctions, which I will continue to highlight as long as you maintain
and propogate your personal heresies on this list.  We are clearly not sharers
of the same doctrine.  You are now Trinitarian; we are Oneness; you have re-
jected the Apostolic plan of salvation, which we maintain.  You do not believe
in holiness; we do.  And, of course, the most articulated difference has been
our notions of faith.

In the interest of preserving unity on this list and once again allowing
this forum to return to the brotherly fellowship that we enjoyed before your
doctrines became an issue, I would say that we drop the discussion altogether.
Obviously, we are unconvinced of your undefendable doctrines, and no amount of
apologetics on your end will change our rejection of those fallacies.  If you
do have any additional or final comments, would you mind sending them to me
privately that we may no longer belabour this list with a circular discussion
that will never advance as long as you refuse to own up to the subficial
beliefs of your movement/lifestyle.

No offences meant.

All Honour to Christ Jesus.



Matthew Shaw
00mcshaw@bsu.edu