Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

The WOF vs. Scripture Challenge...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Quiet Wyatt
Setting historic orthodox Christian doctrine aside for the moment for the sake of argument, sound exegesis of the WoF prooftexts clearly reveals the WoF ‘hermeneutic’ to be deeply flawed. As is true with any cult, WoF doctrine is built entirely upon verses taken out of context, all supposedly supported by a ‘new revelation’ or, as WoFers say, ‘revelation knowledge’. WoFers, following in Kenyon’s footsteps, are quick to denounce what they refer to as ‘sense knowledge,’ which to WoFers is essentially any anti-WoF interpretation of Scripture or use even of one’s God-given capacity for reason to interpret the Scriptures.

Kenyonism/WoF is indeed a form of neo-Gnosticism, which denies historic orthodox Christian doctrine regarding God, man, revelation, and faith, and which quite self-servingly denies the legitimacy of sound interpretation of the inspired Scriptures. Don’t agree with Kenyon and the WoF doctrine? Well, you clearly don’t have the revelation they have, and you are merely relying on ‘sense knowledge’ instead. Aaron’s epistemological relativism holds out no hope for clarity on anything one can know; after all, it all is just a matter of interpretation, a difference of opinion. By that measure, no one knows anything really, and only sheer arrogant bombast is necessary to win a debate. Truth is a really non-category, if any interpretation is as good as any other.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
1/21/18 12:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
By that measure, no one knows anything really, and only sheer arrogant bombast is necessary to win a debate. Truth is a really non-category, if any interpretation is as good as any other.

This is what it comes down to for me as well. I'm certain that Aaron would affirm that there is absolute truth -- in fact, he's done so in this thread. But if that truth can't be known, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. We'll know it when we get to Heaven, and that's great, but while we're here, no interpretation can be sufficiently disproven; they all have measures of validity no matter what they teach.

Yes, the illumination of the Holy Spirit is required for the Scriptures to be anything but foolishness for us. But for those in this thread, that illumination has been given. If we can't read something in context and debate with clarity about its plain meaning, then there is unfortunately no point to engaging in threads like this. Aaron's request, gracious as it is, gracious as he has been in this thread, is literally impossible to satisfy.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/21/18 1:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
diakoneo wrote:
I suppose my issue is with error in general. If I know there may be some error in the doctrine which I am listening to and in turn learning from, should I immediately pull back from it or continue? If I am uncertain whether there is error or not, how would I determine if there was error? It seems the only way to determine is to study the word in context...verse, chapter, book and whole book.

If we see then a little error, should we turn a blind eye and say, "well for the most part it is good and it feels good...tastes good?" Or because of the error should we stand and point to the error and make every one aware of it? Is a little error OK. How far can I be from the truth and be okay?

The word sin was originally a term used to describe missing the mark also failure and to be in error It seems in archery the object was to reach the gold. You could hit the target, but still you sinned and was in error when you missed the goal. So, how far off can I be when aiming for the target? Will bad doctrine produce bad results? If I know what will produce erroneous results, why would I continue using that method?


It depends on the error. No one has it all perfect...we know in part. MANY disagree, in part, with COG doctrine, yet stay in the COG.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/22/18 7:42 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
Setting historic orthodox Christian doctrine aside for the moment for the sake of argument, sound exegesis of the WoF prooftexts clearly reveals the WoF ‘hermeneutic’ to be deeply flawed. As is true with any cult, WoF doctrine is built entirely upon verses taken out of context, all supposedly supported by a ‘new revelation’ or, as WoFers say, ‘revelation knowledge’. WoFers, following in Kenyon’s footsteps, are quick to denounce what they refer to as ‘sense knowledge,’ which to WoFers is essentially any anti-WoF interpretation of Scripture or use even of one’s God-given capacity for reason to interpret the Scriptures.

Kenyonism/WoF is indeed a form of neo-Gnosticism, which denies historic orthodox Christian doctrine regarding God, man, revelation, and faith, and which quite self-servingly denies the legitimacy of sound interpretation of the inspired Scriptures. Don’t agree with Kenyon and the WoF doctrine? Well, you clearly don’t have the revelation they have, and you are merely relying on ‘sense knowledge’ instead. Aaron’s epistemological relativism holds out no hope for clarity on anything one can know; after all, it all is just a matter of interpretation, a difference of opinion. By that measure, no one knows anything really, and only sheer arrogant bombast is necessary to win a debate. Truth is a really non-category, if any interpretation is as good as any other.


Which sound interpretation and exegesis of inspired scripture and historic orthodox Christian doctrine are you referring to? Yours? The one before or after 1611? The one before or after Luther? The one before or after Cane Ridge? The one before or after Barney Creek? The one before or after Azusa Street?

COG doctrine is not frozen in time. It has changed and is changing.

That change doesn't mean there's no hope for clarity. It's a matter of being willing to reconsider what we've been handed. I was handed a highly legalistic, works-based theology that Paul clearly denounces. If I blindly ignore the scripture because it seems to contradict the sound interpretation and exegesis and historic orthodox Christ doctrine I've been handed, then I'll never find the a better understanding of the Truth. The Jews' sound interpretation and exegesis of historic orthodox Jewish doctrine caused them to miss the day of their visitation.

Scripture needs the Spirit to give it meaning and life. What you call "historic orthodox Christian doctrine" is not immune to the human factor any more than WOF doctrine or COG doctrine can be. We must continue to listen for and contend for better, more accurate, more contextual interpretation of scripture.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/22/18 7:57 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
bradfreeman wrote:
We must continue to listen for and contend for better, more accurate, more contextual interpretation of scripture.

Well, I made it a day.

Historic orthodox Christian doctrine is held as a guiding standard because we recognize that God the Holy Spirit has done His work throughout the centuries, throughout the generations, since the faith was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. It's a recognition that the near-universal witness of core orthodoxy in the Early Church, before the schisms, echoed in the Reformation but present even throughout the era of the medieval church, is the work of the Holy Spirit guiding Christ's church of every era and generation toward the same truth.

Your view is not only denigrating toward the written word, but it's denigrating toward the Holy Spirit, as if He could not accomplish or achieve this work until modern-day believers came on the scene. Unless we're having a discussion about textual criticism and new manuscripts, I am not sure how believers today could engage in "new" interpretation. The legalistic, works-based theology that you say you were handed has been contended against throughout the history of the church. So has the antinomian theology on which you seem to have landed.

Scripture is external and objective. It is something that everyone who is born of the Spirit can comprehend and understand. If I'm understanding your statement correctly, your view that we need to "listen for" something subjective and internal to us that will help guide us into better and more accurate interpretation is neo-Gnostic or worse. It also makes discussions like this impossible, because you can simply say that those making arguments against you do not have the understanding of the Spirit like you do. You can denigrate them as blind and their devotion as being things they do with dead letters, and there is no argument they can muster against you.

That is why I told you yesterday that I wouldn't reply to you again. Not because I was angry about the shade you cast at my devotions, though I was, but because it is a fruitless and exhausting endeavor.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/22/18 8:29 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Your view is not only denigrating toward the written word, but it's denigrating toward the Holy Spirit, as if He could not accomplish or achieve this work until modern-day believers came on the scene.


No one is denigrating scripture. I will question someone's take on it...as in the practical commitments. And the historic problem that prompted the need for a reformation or a Barney Creek or an Asuza Street has never been with the Holy Spirit. We just don't hear Him very well sometimes. As you seem to be willing to acknowledge, the Holy Spirit has been working "throughout the centuries." He has achieved His work and achieved His work and achieved His work every time we drift into the dark ages or ignore the gifts of the Spirit or fall away from faith back into works...and He will continue to teach and guide into truth.

...folks like you and me who have experiences with legalism or WoF will need to reconsider what we believe, to re-new our minds, to metanoia, to listen to the Spirit and avoid letting our hurts or frustrations or other experiences have a voice so loud we can't hear Him.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/22/18 8:44 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Dave Dorsey wrote:
If I'm understanding your statement correctly, your view that we need to "listen for" something subjective and internal to us that will help guide us into better and more accurate interpretation is neo-Gnostic or worse.


Wow. What a straw-man argument.

We need to listen for the Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us into Truth...you know, what you attempt to do every Sunday when you stand in a pulpit and explain the external and objective scripture.

Isn't it odd that faith doesn't come by reading, but by hearing the word of Christ? What do you suppose that means objectively?
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/22/18 8:51 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
A statement beginning with "If I'm understanding your statement correctly, ..." cannot be a straw man. It has a built-in acknowledgment that the author might not be understanding you correctly and a built-in invitation to clarify.

In context, Rom 10:17 is a reference to saving faith coming through the verbal proclamation of God's word. The context of 10:5-13 makes it crystal clear we are talking about people coming to initial saving faith in Christ, and the context of 10:14-17 makes it crystal clear we are talking about a preacher proclaiming the gospel to people who had not yet heard it.

That is all it is saying. No part of this is saying that faith doesn't grow in a believer when he is reading the Bible, but only when the Spirit is speaking to his heart.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/22/18 8:58 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Also, 80-95% of the Greco Roman world was illiterate, depending on region. So that's probably another reason why their faith came by hearing rather than reading. Laughing

I'm not sure there could be a better example of the category of hermeneutical errors you make than your question of how faith comes to us based on Romans 10:17. That is, as plain as day, not a teaching about the method by which faith comes to us. It is, as plain as day, not a statement that faith doesn't come when we read, but only when we hear. I hope that doesn't come across rude, because that's absolutely not my intent. But it's just a crystal clear example of what happens when you take single verses as proof texts, which seems (to me) to be the near entirety of the Scriptural support you offer for your positions.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/22/18 11:32 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Folks, folks, folks... Aaron Scott
Look, it's OK. There's not need to get upset and come up with all kinds of harsh statements just because you weren't able to clearly show from the scripture that the WOF is incorrect.

We get upset about the WOF's interpretation...when, in reality, we are using OUR interpretation to claim they are wrong.

First, some folks like to act like WOF is a monolithic bloc of believers, and that they ALL read and agree with everything Kenyon (or whomever) said. They are no more monolithic than we are.

Like us, they may have folks that don't even KNOW exactly what all we believe. They may have folks that cannot articulate exactly what is believed about the trinity (probably more than 50% of COG folks could not get a multiple-choice question right on the correct articulation of the doctrine. They may have folks who never even heard of Ray H. Hughes (so to speak).

But the kicker is that we get our shorts all in a bunch because OUR interpretation of scripture doesn't carry the day. That doesn't mean you're wrong...and that doesn't mean you're right. We ALL have to work through some things, draw our own conclusions, etc.

Why do you suppose that we shouldn't be seeing MORE miracles than we are? Is it really God's will to NOT do it...or is it our faith...or is it the sick person's faith? To hear some tell it, "Why, it can't be me--I have superb faith...so it must be that God doesn't want to heal them."

Well, you're welcome to hold that. After all, as you know, the next step down is full cessation.

1) Jesus heals EVERYONE who comes to Him.
2) Miracles are commonplace.
3) We see miracles every now and then.
4) We rarely see miracles.
5) We NEVER see miracles.

I rarely see miracles. But the difference is that I can't find any reason to think that Jesus wouldn't heal someone today. If that makes me WOF, then SIGN ME UP! If that makes you Word of Doubt, then affix your signature.

We ALL believe according to how we interpret the scriptures. Sometimes, a scripture is twisted so far out of whack that it is easy to dismiss. But in the case of the WOF--as set forth by OTCP, anyway--these may not be things you and I embrace, but there is still some scriptural basis for their position. I'm sorry about that, but there is. Doesn't mean they are right...but it means we can't just dismiss their position (at least truthfully--take note, OTCP) as having nothing to do with the scripture.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
1/22/18 11:54 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Folks, folks, folks... Dave Dorsey
Aaron Scott wrote:
There's not need to get upset and come up with all kinds of harsh statements just because you weren't able to clearly show from the scripture that the WOF is incorrect.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Other posters: Multiple paragraphs about why Aaron's epistemological framework makes it impossible for anyone to answer his question to his satisfaction.

Aaron: Hey, hey, there's no reason to get upset because you couldn't answer my question to my satisfaction!
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/22/18 12:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I'm not sure there could be a better example of the category of hermeneutical errors you make than your question of how faith comes to us based on Romans 10:17.


A question is hermeneutical error? Laughing C'mon DD.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/22/18 1:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
bradfreeman wrote:
A question is hermeneutical error? Laughing C'mon DD.

In this case, yup!
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/22/18 1:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Now, Dave... Aaron Scott
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
There's not need to get upset and come up with all kinds of harsh statements just because you weren't able to clearly show from the scripture that the WOF is incorrect.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Other posters: Multiple paragraphs about why Aaron's epistemological framework makes it impossible for anyone to answer his question to his satisfaction.

Aaron: Hey, hey, there's no reason to get upset because you couldn't answer my question to my satisfaction!


You could have gone all day and not went there! (SMILE)

Dave, consider that difference in the following two questions in terms of a scriptural argument:

1) Jesus is the Son of God; and

2) WOF is wrong.


Now, the first one has so many clear, silver bullet, statements of scriptures to back it up that an opposing argument wouldn't last much longer than a minute. Further, even an ATHEIST, if simply going on what the scriptures say about Jesus, would have to affirm that, so far as the scriptures go, Jesus IS the Son of God (even if they didn't believe that themselves).

But in the second case, we cannot find the sort of scriptures that an uninterested third party would declare decisive. I think what actually happens is that WE get so upset with WOF beliefs that we are just certain they can't be right, and so we not only place no weight on their arguments, but we over-weight OUR arguments. But in truth, at the end of the day, no matter how hard we've tried, we have been unable to find the silver bullet that would take down WOF doctrine.

Now, an argument against WOF may be good enough to convince US, but you have to admit that the scriptural statements for or against WOF are not even in the same class as scriptural statements on, say:

There is one God.
Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.
Jesus was born of a virgin.
Jesus was crucified, died, and rose again.
Jesus died for our sins.
Etc.

The above are positions that have STRONG, virtually IRON-CLAD scriptural proof. The arguments both for and against WOF are not like that...and are such that, not having decisive scriptural proof, we are left to claim that our INTERPRETATION should carry the day.

Now, admittedly, some folks would likely claim that the whole notion of there being only one God is based on interpretation, but the scriptural evidence is so pervasive that such a person would be dismissed as not serious, etc. WOF doctrine does not have a clear scriptural weight SUPPORTING it...but neither does it have clear scriptural weight AGAINST it.

And that is all that I have argued. Not that it is correct. Not that OTCP is wrong. Only that there are no CLEAR statements in scripture that would take down WOF decisively.

I'm sorry that it's not that way--I, too, wish there was something more decisive in the scriptures regarding this matter--but there it is.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
1/22/18 2:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post WOF Scripture Change Agent
While all of you are arguing the COG is bringing a WOF man to the General Assembly this summer. Lets all her it for our leaders. Now don't criticize our leaders who brought him here. They must be sure some of you pastors need to broaden your views on scriptures concerning Faith. I personally want to invite OTCP to attend. He. seems to need it the most. Our good leaders know what we need, Praise God.

Be sure to check your Fake, I mean Faith News for the name of the person coming.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
1/23/18 7:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Now, Dave... Old Time Country Preacher
Aaron Scott wrote:
Not that OTCP is wrong. Only that there are no CLEAR statements in scripture that would take down WOF decisively.


Take the 4-5 major doctrinal positions held by woffies in general an not a single one can stand the test of solid biblical exegesis.

Take the 4-5 major prooftexts used by woffies in general an not a single one can stand the test of substantive hermeneutics.

Now ats a fact.............
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15559
1/23/18 8:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: WOF Scripture Old Time Country Preacher
Change Agent wrote:
While all of you are arguing the COG is bringing a WOF man to the General Assembly this summer. Lets all her it for our leaders. Now don't criticize our leaders who brought him here. They must be sure some of you pastors need to broaden your views on scriptures concerning Faith. I personally want to invite OTCP to attend. He. seems to need it the most. Our good leaders know what we need, Praise God.

Be sure to check your Fake, I mean Faith News for the name of the person coming.



Won't be there to hear him anymore than I was to hear Rod Parsley when he was asked by TL Lowery.

When Franklin Graham spoke at the GA, was the COG leadership promotin his Baptist/Presbyterian theology? Nope!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15559
1/23/18 8:26 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
bradfreeman wrote:
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
Setting historic orthodox Christian doctrine aside for the moment for the sake of argument, sound exegesis of the WoF prooftexts clearly reveals the WoF ‘hermeneutic’ to be deeply flawed. As is true with any cult, WoF doctrine is built entirely upon verses taken out of context, all supposedly supported by a ‘new revelation’ or, as WoFers say, ‘revelation knowledge’. WoFers, following in Kenyon’s footsteps, are quick to denounce what they refer to as ‘sense knowledge,’ which to WoFers is essentially any anti-WoF interpretation of Scripture or use even of one’s God-given capacity for reason to interpret the Scriptures.

Kenyonism/WoF is indeed a form of neo-Gnosticism, which denies historic orthodox Christian doctrine regarding God, man, revelation, and faith, and which quite self-servingly denies the legitimacy of sound interpretation of the inspired Scriptures. Don’t agree with Kenyon and the WoF doctrine? Well, you clearly don’t have the revelation they have, and you are merely relying on ‘sense knowledge’ instead. Aaron’s epistemological relativism holds out no hope for clarity on anything one can know; after all, it all is just a matter of interpretation, a difference of opinion. By that measure, no one knows anything really, and only sheer arrogant bombast is necessary to win a debate. Truth is a really non-category, if any interpretation is as good as any other.


Which sound interpretation and exegesis of inspired scripture and historic orthodox Christian doctrine are you referring to? Yours? The one before or after 1611? The one before or after Luther? The one before or after Cane Ridge? The one before or after Barney Creek? The one before or after Azusa Street?

COG doctrine is not frozen in time. It has changed and is changing.

That change doesn't mean there's no hope for clarity. It's a matter of being willing to reconsider what we've been handed. I was handed a highly legalistic, works-based theology that Paul clearly denounces. If I blindly ignore the scripture because it seems to contradict the sound interpretation and exegesis and historic orthodox Christ doctrine I've been handed, then I'll never find the a better understanding of the Truth. The Jews' sound interpretation and exegesis of historic orthodox Jewish doctrine caused them to miss the day of their visitation.

Scripture needs the Spirit to give it meaning and life. What you call "historic orthodox Christian doctrine" is not immune to the human factor any more than WOF doctrine or COG doctrine can be. We must continue to listen for and contend for better, more accurate, more contextual interpretation of scripture.


When I refer to historic orthodox Christian doctrine, I’m referring to what has been historically universally affirmed by Christianity. The doctrines of Kenyonism/WoFism fall far outside the boundaries of what Christians or basically every stripe have agreed to about God, man, faith, and the nature of inspired truth.

As for sound exegesis of Scripture, it is an undeniable fact that WoF ‘inteprets’ (really, twists) Scripture in a manner that absolutely no genuine scholar of the inspired word of God would ever ascribe credibility to. Even someone with decent reading comprehension skills and a good grasp of the whole of Scripture can easily note the flawed, proof-texted nature of WoF ‘interpretation’ of the verses it cites in its support.

WoF only perseveres because of people are often selfish and like to think that God wants them to be perfectly healthy, happy, and abundantly wealthy in this life.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
1/24/18 5:42 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Now, Dave... bradfreeman
Old Time Country Preacher wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
Not that OTCP is wrong. Only that there are no CLEAR statements in scripture that would take down WOF decisively.


Take the 4-5 major doctrinal positions held by woffies in general an not a single one can stand the test of solid biblical exegesis.

Take the 4-5 major prooftexts used by woffies in general an not a single one can stand the test of substantive hermeneutics.

Now ats a fact.............


OK fellas, let's hear how these unorthodox heretical views are unscriptural.

From Rhema's website:

What We Believe

• The Bible is the inspired Word of God.

• Our God is One, but manifested in three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

• Man is a created being, made in the likeness and image of God, but through Adam’s transgression and fall, sin came into the world.

• Salvation is the gift of God to man through faith in Jesus Christ.

• The New Birth is necessary to all men, and when experienced, produces eternal life.

• Baptism in water is by immersion, is a direct commandment of our Lord, and is for believers only.

• The Baptism in the Holy Ghost is a gift and is accompanied by the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.

• We believe in sanctification, which is living a life of holiness.

• Healing is the privilege of every member of the Church today provided through Jesus’ death on the Cross.

• Jesus will return and “. . . The dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air . . .” (1 Thess. 4:16–17).”

• The one who physically dies in his sins without accepting Christ is eternally lost and, therefore, has no further opportunity of hearing the Gospel or repenting.


From Kenyon's website:

What We Believe

We stand for the whole Bible as the whole revelation of God in Christ, and that what God revealed in Christ is every true believer's heritage.

The Eternal Godhead We believe in the eternal godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Finished Work We believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit We believe in the Holy spirit and His indwelling presence.
Healing We believe healing is for us.
Miracles We believe the miracles of the Book of Acts is to be perpetuated.
New Kind of Love We believe in the new kind of love that Jesus brought to the law of the brethren, and we believe we are to walk in that love.
Eternal Reward We believe in the eternal reward of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
Jesus Christ We believe that Jesus Christ is the Head and Lord of the body.
The Great Commission We believe in the Great Commission.
The Second Coming We believe in the second coming of our Lord.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/24/18 8:29 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Let's trade errors diakoneo
The WoF movement at it's core is a human works based doctrine. Name it and claim it is based on YOUR belief. If it didn't happen when you named it and claimed it, it was because YOU through your human effort to believe, failed. Mentally you could not " cut the mustard". You lacked the psychological skills to do it. It cannot be "seen" as was in the hyper-Holiness movement. Hair, pants, make-up, jewelry, etc, exchanged for mental and psychological prowess. Is it any wonder that many Pentecostals have moved from one error to the other? Both are works based but one is more socially acceptable in today's world, thus giving us the rise of such people as Joel Osteen etc and the prosperity gospel preachers. Most if not all of these espouse Pentecost and will use the Holy Spirit to peddle their revelations (very dangerous!) Most will distance themselves from external holiness, while advocating this internal "faith" ability. Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
1/24/18 8:38 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.