Rodney Howard-Browne: A 2nd attempt at a documented and scripture discussion

You are a funny bloke...anyway moving right along.What is the difference with:'Either You come down here and touch me, or I will come up there and touch You,' he prayed in desperation.and this guy:And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. Gen 32:26Sounds like they were both desperate for God to move in their lives. It seems that you have to make an appointment to speak to your Father and not having the amazing privlege of pouring out your heart to him.With all the history of our interaction you will hopefully trust my heart when I say this is knitpicking childishness.

HiInteresting analysis of RHB. But, wasn't this story from his youth? Maybe a bit rough, naive, but honestly the man loves God and probably didn't utter the words out of disrespect for the Lord at all.Getting into semantics about his words seems pointless as it is obvious that they were said by someone who was desperately seeking God.Threatening God though? Seems a little creative in the interpretation to be honest!But, I will be interested to see more of your analysis of why you so strongly belive RHB to be a false teacher.That's a big call to be making about another Christian. I think you'll need to be a little more convincing than just attempting convict from a statement made by an 18 year old! Benno 8-)

Jacob was wrestling with was God, but an angel. There is a vast difference. If it was God, then it was the only time that God confronted a man face to face... and the man didnt fall on his face. It would be completely out of synch with the rest of scripture. better re check your facts here

Hi Benno,Fixed that other post...Just a couple of things. Just in case you didn't see it, there was this other posting that got off track a bit and led to this new posting:Rodney Howard-Browne: A Critical Examination of his Theology and PracticeFrom that an excerpt from Philologos:Krispy has provided a list of items. We could go through this list and provide rational explanations for each one of them, explaining why a true servant of God might have said or done this in some circumstances, but this will fail to register the acculmalative effect of the list. I think some of Krispy's items are 'strained' but the overall picture is clear enough.I suppose we have all made up our minds about the Toronto Blessing and we will see Howard-Browne as a hero or culprit depending on our prejudgements. In the end we are providing evidence for our settled opinions, and ultimately we end up with 'my discernment is as valid as yours'. What do we do then when faithful brethren have different 'witnesses' to the rightness or wrongness of a particular phenomena? We examine the phenomena and the participants and compare both against the biblical record.Also, a helpful and balanced link was given as well: chronology of the Toronto BlessingThink this has yet to be developed fully, though there has been much past discussion over various aspects in months gone by. In just reading through the first parts of that link it seems there were various good intentions, misguided certainly and influenced by others that came even before them... but it is not so easily cut and dried as it seems. It is very much the problem with this as a whole, for those who have been there and caught up in much of this type of teaching and come out from underneath it all...Some of it is overt, a lot of it is murky, muddy, very much the problem right there. The difficulty is in throwing a blanket over the whole thing and yet find it often fallen mens imaginations running wild and no doubt a lot of it just down right appalling.There is far too much that has led to many being mislead not to give it proper attention. Some of us have had to unlearn a great deal, some of us are still living with the ramifications of what was borne out of this type of thing. The difficulty of trying to reverse this whole line of thinking in those you know, my own loved ones still affected, still raising up the defenses like an auto reflex. Know a bit of this, did much the same.There are a lot of ties between these men as is spelled out in that article. This whole thing need not be dragged down into a defending or defrauding, divisiveness, only that which was well mentioned:We examine the phenomena and the participants and compare both against the biblical record

Think that if you wish Thankyou for given the right to do so....this will not be the only quotations from RHB that I will be bringing up. I would advice that you exercise some patience before dismissing me.I am not dismissing you, but your logic for starters. I mean you want to build a case against some guys ministry and we haven't even got out the starting blocks and there is a problem. How you can you build anything corrrectly with a scew foundation. Job poured his heart out without disrespecting God. And as far as Genesis 32:26, Jacob did not threaten God...So you are willing to build a case based upon the fact that he did not come to God in the correct manner. The man was desperate, he says so. You are judging his heart motive, how can you? If you are willing to use that against him for his apparent disrespect of God, well... The commentaries I have, and the studies I have done do not conclude that the "man" Jacob was wrestling with was God, but an angel. There is a vast difference. If it was God, then it was the only time that God confronted a man face to face... and the man didnt fall on his face. It would be completely out of synch with the rest of scripture.And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Gen 32:30So it could be said that Jacob did'nt really see God and the KJV translators made a mistake. Sometimes you only see what you want to see.You're making a large stretch there, my friend.I could say the same about you, so who is stretching the furtherest.

KrispyKrittr wrote:Zeke kinda misunderstand where I am going with this. I'm merely taking my time building a foundation for this discussion.I don't think so, but thanks for the grace. It is a foundation built upon your own presupposition.f If you have something against what he teaches, then throw it out here and let us talk about it, because the way it is starting 'according to me' is wrong.Please jump in and add comments... even if you disagree... but dont just disagree and call me names. Show me in the Bible why you disagree. After all... the Word of God is the Final Authority.What from the word of God has he taught that could be construde as being crooked? Simple question, simple answer?

I think the full quote was "God tonight is my night! Lord, either you come down here and touch me, or I'm going to die and come up there and touch you."Manifesting the Holy Ghost: Rodney Howard-Browne. pp 13-14 I am not sure that this is as belligerant as you have made it sound. To me, this sounds more like desparation than agression.

Krispy writesThe commentaries I have, and the studies I have done do not conclude that the "man" Jacob was wrestling with was God, but an angel. There is a vast difference. If it was God, then it was the only time that God confronted a man face to face... and the man didnt fall on his face. It would be completely out of synch with the rest of scripture.Apparently the Bible translators did not consider this man to be God either ... notice none of the nouns for this man (man, thee, thou) are capatilized.I think most evangelicals would regard the Angel of the LORD as a pre-incarnation manifestation of Christ. This passage, which is Jacob's prayer for his grandsons even has your 'capital letters';“The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”(Gen. 48:16, KJVS)

I'm forced to agree with Philogo on the Angel thing. It could be said that this Angel of the Lord was the same that visitied Monaoh (Samson's Dad) and Gideon--both of them if im not mistaken (and im just shooting from the hip so if im wrong, im wrong)Recieved worship from those that they appeared too, as did johsua. i don't believe that "angels" are to recieve worship. And it begs the question, what of the woman with the issue of Blood that in desperation DID touch the hem of Jesus' garment? I can understand your sentiment about threatening God, I don't have a place set at the table for RHB, but i don't know if i would classify this quote as "threatening". James tells us to draw near to God THEN he will draw near to us...so he proably should have drawn near to God in the first place, hence God would respond with drawing near to him. Leaving his statment really a moot point. just my 2 pennies.

KrispyKrittr wrote:It cannot be claimed with absolute certainty that the man Jacob wrestled was God incarnate. However, I will concede that it is somewhat subjective.So can we trash exhibit A in your case against Uncle Rodney? What is your next piece of proof to bring before this forum? Who knows I may agree with you. :-P

It also needs to be noted that Joshua didn't even reconize the Lord when entering into the promised land, until it was revealed to him that is. Same with Gideon and the parents of Samson and and and. I think the trouble is in some ways we all approach God in some preconcieved way, or we think God will show Himself to us in a manner that fits our own thinking.No matter how biblical we think our thinking is.

During the last year, I've read two books that describe early American revival of the frontier Methodist. One is called Pioneers and Patriots and the other is an autobiography of Peter Cartwright.In these books are descriptions of manifestations taking place from the Revolutionary period into the mid 1850's. Most of these manifestations I've heard of taking place in recent years and was surprised that they were not something recent. People fell out from the late 1700's in Virginia through the Cane Ridge Revival and into the mid 1800's. Some barked like dogs. Others went into uncontrolled jerks. Peter Cartwright said that he witnessed someone jerking so hard it killed him. Women sometimes would jerk so hard their hair was reported to make a snap sound.What was puzzling was that the people who did these things, including falling out, were either people who came into the camp meetings to cause trouble or else people who were backslidden. Often there was a great change in the people who fell out for good but it was not something that people were seeking. Some were out for days or even a week at a time. They fell because they were backslidden or in opposition to the meetings. One Christian man was reported to drop to the ground after the preacher stomped his foot and said smite him Lord.The jerks were a manifestation that I had never heard about. It appears by these books to have been quite common and in many different places and times. Unbelievers or backsliders would start to jerk and not be able to control themselves. The man who Cartwright reported to have died by violent jerking came to a meeting cursing and wanting to break up the meeting.Why are these same manifestations thought of by many people to be any different today then yesterday? People in this past era were thought of as being unbelievers or backslidden. The manifestations came on people who were not spiritually right with God according to these books. Instead of representing a person’s submission to God, falling out represented the power of God.In Christ,GaryE

Some barked like dogs. Others went into uncontrolled jerks...Why are these same manifestations thought of by many people to be any different today then yesterday?Historical precedent is hardly the issue. The important issue with this type of phenomenon is not whether it is a recent expression of worship, but whether it is a true spiritual form of worship. Establishing it's prior history doesn't do much to convince me that signs such as barking like dogs, and violent jerking are from the Holy Spirit...even if under conviction.Certainly we are aware that even glossalalia is not a uniquely Christian manifestation. This fact should cause us to walk carefully and to not assume that all manifestations of this phenomenon are from God. Glossolalia occurs frequently among the Eskimos (Inuits) of the Hudson Bay area of Canada. The priestesses of North Borneo speak incantations in a language known only to the spirits (demons) and themselves. The tribal doctors of the modern Quillancinga and Pasto groups of the Andes recite unintelligible prayers as they heal their patients. Glossolalia occurs during seances on the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu. Even Herodus and Virgil wrote of priests speaking strange languages while possessed. Indeed, even the pagan priestess near Corinth, (where the issue of glossolalia first became noteworthy itself in the Christian Church), spoke in tongues at the shrine of the Delphic Oracle. I say all of this not to offend anyone, but as a reaction to overconfidence in manifestations that may not be divine at all...they are either pathological or perhaps demonic...even 200 years ago. I consider myself fairly openminded to most styles of Christianity. But when people in my church start barking like dogs, or snapping their hair like whips, I'll remind my children as I take them quickly out of the building of this scripture from Paul. "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." Again, I mean no offense...only caution.MC

Impressed with the grace shown here so far, hope that continues. Maybe a good place to interject something alongside without distracting too much from all this just in a general sense regarding revival.These may be of some help to some:What is Revival?Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the Need for Revival and Baptism with the Holy SpiritBack to what is at hand.That is certainly not what happened to Peter on the day of Pentecost! Consider Peter’s sermon as recorded in Acts 2:14-40. It was a lengthy, detailed sermon. He quoted many Old Testament scriptures and precisely analyzed and applied them to that present situation. It was the sermon of a very sober-minded preacher. Those who are intoxicated at Laughing Revival meetings find it impossible even to walk or drive properly. When they are asked to give a testimony of what is happening to them, they often cannot do so. Sometimes they merely stare blankly and cannot say anything. Others say a few words or sentences in a halting, slurred manner. Others, when they try to reply to questions, fall over and lay immobilized or flop around on the floor. This type of experience is a direct CONTRAST to that which occurred on the day of Pentecost.This will be redundant to some, but ultimately this was what finally drove me out of all the madness. Just shortly after 911 we went to an evening service to mourn and pray over all that had happened, this was to be as it was announced a time set aside, branched out of there normal mid week services. Need to insert that we had never attended during the week prior and found out that a lot of things that would go on in a Sunday service were much more conservative in comparison. What began as a very somber and heart wrenching outpouring of grief over all that had gone on in the days prior was soon to be put away when the pastor stated that he felt they should carry on with the subject matter that they had been studying in previous weeks: Tongues. Will skip that for now, grievous as it was all things considered. He went on to tell about how they had been in a meeting at some point and how the Spirit was poured out and they got "drunk in the spirit" so much so that on the way home he was weaving apparently enough to get pulled over. He went on to explain to the cops that he was a pastor* and had just come from a meeting and that he was not "drunk" in that way but... He went on to state that he was then provided a police escort the rest of the way home, (that 'favor' thing). I was practically besides myself, the imagination running with thought of headlines: "'Drunk in the Spirit' Pastor kills family of 5 in auto accident".It proceeded to only get worse as they then launched into the 'teaching' and then the incredible babbling of 'tongues' with the exhortation to not quench the spirit and.... It sounded practically demonic to these ears, 30 people all talking gibberish at the same time with no interpretation, no control and the continuing feeding into it of "Let yourself go". It was the sickest moment I had ever felt there, to go from mourning at a time of such devastation to all the absurdity, foolishness and just plain... it's a wonder I didn't empty the contents of my stomach besides the grief inside, it was just horrifying and incredibly saddening. On top of all that it caused a great contention between my wife and myself as she sensed my disgust and as we left it ended up turning into a big argument over it all. One thing I had resolved, I would never ever return to that church again.These are no small matters here, there are serious ramifications to these types of things and that is what is so often shoved aside sadly.Something that I think this bears out above here and also alongside the earlier thoughts first expressed in this thread, is what often is seen in much of this type of thing:Flippancy.There is a vast difference between a reverential boldness and a bringing forth of a mandate. In this present instance that may or may not have been the case with RHB. But this whole 'movement' is wrought with it. *(Of a Mega-Church out here)

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: 15Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: 16Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. 17Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? 18Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people. 19Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen: 20But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things. 21Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the LORD will do great things. Joel 2:15-21 :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

It seems that it is allowed/tolerated/condoned what happens in these meetings. My question is, is this practise taught as an 'evidence/consequence/requirement' of God working? It seems wild, and having seen some of the churches in my country that align themselves with this stuff, it does taste funny.For the ear tests words as the tongue tastes food. Job 34:3If you have only tasted junk food you whole life you will recoil at the thought of having to eat your veggies. Maybe that is the problem, there are so many that have and want to walk in freedom that they would tolerate almost anything to maintain the liberty that they have in Christ.MC's calling our attention to the verse where everything must be done in order is true. The only thing is what about the other side of the error in christendom?We can 'feel' that what goes on in 'those' meetings is clearly not centred upon the teachings of the whole bible. However, what is the difference between that and a congregation that has stepped back into religion as the Galation church did. Both are excesses, which requires more of an outcry? Is it maybe that there are clearly defined personalities within this movement that we can 'guard' against that makes it an easy one to pick apart.Is not the religious aspect of christianity more subtle, certainly in my mind I cannot recall of anyone who is advocating a religious christianity, except maybe a system of christianity. A system is probably way more dangerous, because it can start effecting our culture of church, and can't be tagged to this or that person. Which is worse though and which deserves more airtime? Maybe the best way is not to tag names to a style of church, but rather exposing the system of that error.The question to ask is, are these people still christians? I think a while back we had big discussions about whether Roman Catholics are christian and the popes salvation et al. Thats the other side of the coin. The answer to that question has far reaching consequences as we go forward from here. If they are, we should deal with them as though they were brothers who have stepped away from the true faith and not our enemies. Steve was very vocal about his opinion and we all know where that lead us, but at least he is looking both sides of the fence. So in saying all this I just want some consistancy in our application of whose right and whose wrong in this whole mess. For in both of these groupings there are blood washed saints who love Jesus but don't know any better.Climbing off our soap box,

Thanx a lot, dude!Its only a pleasure. ;-) Can't have you operating under code names, this is not the army or marines I forget which one you were in.:-P Besides you told us all yourself when you had your fourth. You are flesh and blood compadre.bless you,

...a while back we had big discussions about whether Roman Catholics are christian ... I've been enjoying the powerful book, "The Imiatation of Christ, written by Thomas a Kempis, a dedicated Catholic monk in the forteenth century. There are other great immortal writings by Catholics that have powerfully benefited Christondem. While it is true that the RC Church did a lot of horrible things in the name of Christ, God nevertheless planted many of his choice servants in their midst.Surely God is doing the same today. I have to admit that a few years ago God used the Toronto Blessing to bless me and awaken me spiritually. I have enjoyed some of their authors too. Nevertheless,I do not support their overall doctrinal foundation. Today, I think that we would be hard pressed to find any righteous denomination. Yet, who can say that within any of them (including those we term as "sects") God is not raising up some of his choice servants?God called us to put our trust in HIM, NOT MAN, and that includes all denominations - for all are prone to wander - and prescribe a form of easy believism that can send just as many people to hell as any "sect". Diane

Thats pretty much what I think, so...snap! So where to form here? 8-)

Today, I think that we would be hard pressed to find any righteous denomination...God called us to put our trust in HIM, NOT MAN, and that includes all denominations - for all are prone to wanderHow beautifully ironic that Roadsign should bring up "The Imitation of Christ." in this thread. The type of spirituality found in this book stands in profound contrast to our sensory driven church services. A few typical words from Thomas a'Kempis..."If you want to make any progress in godliness, keep yourself in the fear of God and do not desire too much freedom. Keep all of your senses under control by severe discipline, and do bot indulge in foolish merriment...There is found a river of tears in which the soul may everynight be washed and cleansed, so tht the more it lives away from worldy disturbances the more it becomes familiar with it's creator. Whoever therefore withdraws from aquaintances and friends, God will draw near to himself with his holy angels."While we may not all ascribe to the Toronto, Brownsville, or Kansas City hooplah, these movements have left their mark on even mainline Christianity. They have sold us their music and their books and we have absorbed them into our bloodstream. Nowadays the worst sin a pastor can commit is to be "boring" to his congregation.Holy Laughter and clucking like chickens is not the real leagacy of these populist movements. Their real influence is the emergence of the charismatic pastorprenure who has replaced the contemplative pastor. These new leaders only have to demonstrate some type of supernatural, or at least commercial power and people entrust themselves to their shepherding.So, because we have accepted the notion of the "Spirit of Power" as being somehow different then the Spirit of Truth we are prey to any talented man who can produce numeric results.What if there was a great preacher that preached truth but nobody listened? What if one of the greatest evangelists that ever lived, wasted his entire life on preaching and never made one convert? Never reported one healing? Most of us would doubt the "calling" of such a preacher. More then likely, even the evangelist himself would doubt his calling and suffer deep dissapointment and even depression. Now if this poor evangelist, this tragic preacher, this failure never found a single soul who believed his message, but still remained faithful to that message, God would recognize him as great prophet. At least that's what happened with Noah.Just some additonal thoughts...MC

This is a very educational thread, which means I am learning a lot. Zeke asks "So where to from here?" One thing I have learned in studying church history is that after a spiritual awakening, that church tends to go into a decline. I do not know how many years it takes, but it does happen. The point is that the devil is working hard to destroy it. Period. In my own denomination - I am in an Anabaptist Church - it has gone from being on fire for God in 1425 to 2005 where you will have all kinds of beliefs that range from denial of basic Bible doctrines to those who still contend for the faith. Oh, sure, there have been revivals which woke people up, but before too long decline sets in again. We are always in a battle against apostasy. If there is a church group that has been able to maintain its purity for hundreds of years without some segment apostasizing, I would love to hear of it. Blessings,ginnyrose

Compton wrote:Just some additonal thoughts...Well it looks like you may have the mind of Christ. :-D Good points!

ginnyrose wrote:If there is a church group that has been able to maintain its purity for hundreds of years without some segment apostasizing, I would love to hear of it. That is one of things that we as a church grouping have really worked very hard at pushing through. Its the handing down of leadership to the third and fourth generation, where they are not only maintaining the work done by the pioneers but are more passionate and more committed to God and his plan for the church. Israel is a classic example of those that saw God do stuff, those that had parents who saw God do stuff and children who have only heard.It is a humbling thing to look at church history and see how many of us took ally ways of truth which led the church away from its original call of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria outer most parts of the world. I am encouraged though that Jesus said that he will build his church. Its 'His Church' praise God!

How beautifully ironic that Roadsign should bring up "The Imitation of Christ." in this thread. The type of spirituality found in this book stands in profound contrast to our sensory driven church services.How about doubly ironic? Had downloaded an audio book version of this to listen to while working over the weekend. Both these ministries had some sort of ties here at some point, but if you are interested Christian Audio is offering "The Imitation of Christ" for free this month: http://christianaudio.com/free_download.phpYou will have to sign up and use the 'coupon', but also a note about the files. It will come up with an option for "Windows Optimized" or "Apple Optimized" I believe is the vernacular used.Even if you have a Windows based system, if you want this as an MP3 file use the "Apple" version, otherwise you will get the files in WMA format, which I didn't catch on to until after the fact. You will end up having to burn a few CD's in that format to complete the book (Didn't have the time...)... On a side note, the other and co joined ministry that offers these audio books is www.hovelaudio.comSorry for the divergence there...Their real influence is the emergence of the charismatic pastorprenure who has replaced the contemplative pastor.That speaks volumes MC

...Christian Audio is offering "The Imitation of Christ" for free this month:Thank you Mike!

KrispyKrittr wrote:Where do we (or better yet... God) draw the line?Can anyone answer that?Come on Krispy take the plundge and tell me/us that uncle Rodney and friends are not christians. At least then we'll know. For me, that would be a courageous call (can you sense the encouragement) 8-) To answer your question:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:1-6 In my little understanding of the word, it all boils down to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as he is reveiled in the pages of scripture. If his position in any way as altered from that of being the supreme focus of all eternity then we would more than likely have drifted from the true faith.

I have read and watched both threads on RHB (that's how its termed anyway) and his teachings. I'm going to say this because no matter what we must all be somewhat careful. In any area where we judge a matter we go into a testing period in a related thing. We judge a man as having false doctrine, sometime later our doctrines in life(usually our own ) will be tested. We judge a spiritual experience, sometime later we will have spiritual experiences that go contrary to our own theology. That's called spiritual laws,found throughout God's principles (I can give you verse if you need it , but most here don't, you already know what it is that I'm talking about) It also must be noted that while RHB may be off in doctrine he still is none the less a man who is trying to serve the Lord(somethings I take the persons word on it , He says he's a christian,I have to believe him, and since I'm not close enough to see his fruit I take his statement by faith.) That leaves another area for us, "who are we to judge another mans servant?"You rember....that's in the bible too, Romans??? Last thing. Baalim(sp?) was refered to as God's prophet, no where is he refered to as false until he taught Balak how to seduce the children of Isreal into sin(SIN). The measure of teaching is always the direction it takes the readers, listeners, ect. Heaven of hell, God or satan, Will of God or the things of man. At that point one becomes true or false in thier teaching. I'll explain more but I have to run.

God calls Baalim HIS prophet. Baalim didn't belong to any pagan king. I might suggest you study that portion of scripture again. Now as to doctrine? I believe if you look closely you will find flaws with every major move of God down through history. Luther had people who dissagreed with him killed. In his personal life he ranted and raved like a lunitic at times against what he called the devil or demons. Things like this I accept at face value and have no real comment on, but I mention them to draw a point to something.I become very cautious when judging anything within the church world.

What denomination or local church affliation are you?

Your back ground will condition your view of the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. If I was to guess I would say that you're baptist or one of the main line non- penecostal denominations or was in the past for much of your christian experience.

Let me start off by saying I'm no RHB fan. Neither am I very fond of the Word of Faith movement. However I've learned to be very cautious when labeling someone or thier doctrine. I was asked once what I thought should be the one question asked prospective pastors for a church opening. I stated, "I want to know that individuals failures and sufferings". I learned not to look at success or accomplishments. The greater question should be was there any thing of substance that came out of the Tor. spiritual movement? What was it? Brother, if we continually look at the glass as half empty thats all we'll have in life is a half empty glass.So while refusing to defend that movement or manifestation or even that doctrine it would be best to just take from it the good and leave the bad. The 'slain in the spirit' aspect , I'm not so sure I'd go there. While the "barking" is prehaps getting into the flesh. Being drunk in the spirit can and is often used in several different ways, so what is meant by it will differ depending on who you talk to . To dissect his doctrine you'd have to know how he hears or understands the Word of God. An example I'll use is one out of proverbs."don't answer a fool after his folley". In my understanding it means to not do as a fool in order to show him how foolish his actions are, and example would be to bite a baby in order to get the baby to stop biting. Your understanding of that scripture may be completely different and in no way will you ever come to understand it my way. In respects of RHB , I personally haven't had the oppurtunity to ask him what he believes , as to God's soverienty ect.... there for the best I can conclude is that he's in error but to out and out call him a false ......what ever, places one on very dangerous grounds. Rember even Jothan Edwards was kicked out of his church and that after the great revival his church experienced.

I wroteIn my little understanding of the word, it all boils down to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as he is reveiled in the pages of scripture. If his position in any way as altered from that of being the supreme focus of all eternity then we would more than likely have drifted from the true faith.You wroteJehovah's Witnesses claim "Jesus Christ as he is reveiled in the pages of scripture" according to their interpretation. Mormon's also claim acceptance of Jesus Christ... so according to your reasoning (and disregard of the scripture I posted earlier...) you believe Jehovah's Witnesses are saved? Krispy this is knee jerk posting, if you had looked at what these two cults say about Jesus, you would realise that they do not think that the universe revolves around him. For a little background on what they do say about Jesus take a look here. If you had known what they do teach you would know what I'm talking about. You are also acting in total disregard for the scripture I postedBut you are trying to turn this discussion into something that it is not... This discussion is about RHB's teachings, not his salvation. So far you have shown nothing of what he teaches, in the last instance all you could dish up is what happens in their meetings. And its meetings of the group he associates with and not specific teachings. I sure you would concede that there is a difference.Can we keep it on topic? You're totally skirting the issue here and not addressing it at all.I have told you from the beginning that I do not agree with what you are doing. I have also told you that I will fight you over this, you may be right in what you are saying but you are wrong about what you are doing.You say that the issue of his salvation is not being discussed, According to the bible there are very clear guidlelines if a brother offends you. If you concede that he is saved, then this is what you should do:Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.    16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.    17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:15-17If you have not done the proceeding steps you are now practising slander. The greek for slander is this:an adjective, "slanderous, accusing falsely," is used as a noun, translated "slanderers" in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the reference is to those who are given to finding fault with the demeanor and conduct of others, and spreading their innuendos and criticisms in the church You may say that you are not doing this but I have never heard you say that you have gone and spoken to him personally and neither have you said that you have taken brothers with you. So by doing what you are now you are speaking about a brothers teachings which you think are in error without having comfronted him directly about his error.If you have had not opportunity to speak to him, at least have the courtesy not to post against him.I have no problem with you bringing specific teachings and I repeat teachings of this group of people and letting us weigh it up against the word. What you have done however is that you first off posted something about the way he prayed as being the beginning points in you case against the man, and not his teachings. Then you brought out what happens in meetings of this nature, which the way I can see it is a problem that goes beyond just one man. There are very few here who would say 'yep' thats of God, so what are you doing? What for?If you want to get info on what they teach we can all look go to: Doctinal Summary and All the info you needEasy to find stuff on the net about anything, right or wrong.Peace,

Can we dumpster dive where they at least have some leftover steak? 8-)

Seems like another life time ago , ut here's some of my back ground. I attended probably what was the grand daddy of them alls church movement. Hobart Freeman's. He predates both Copeland and Hagin and much of what they taught they got from him. The difference was that he taught total faith and total discipleship. When I say total faith this is what I mean, your sick, no matter what the illness, you trust Jesus only, no doctors. People died!It actually became a very legalistic thing.What I came away with was a deep love for the word though. I left that in the 80's and moved to Ohio where I sat under a man of God in an Assemblies of God church. My pastor at that time had been in Asbery College during the great revival there. He was able to fix my theology during a period of time when I too experienced doctrinal meltdown. I did take things out of that time period that were useful.The name it and claim it that you presently see is a preversion of the earlier movements, but the earlier movements were off by degrees too.BTW, they say it only take 1 degree being off to miss the moon. I've always wondered by how much off a person can be and miss heaven? I have no love affair with this teaching of WOF. My passion against much of it is like a burning fire that I sometimes struggle with inside to keep from publically denouncing, but, The Lord gave me a Godly Pastor way back when who patiently helped me weed through all the mess and put me on a course toward the celestial city(as Bunyon would put it). So I try hard to mimic his example. We still remain friends to this day. There's a glimpse of my background. Now having said that I still want to warn caution about coming against some things---manisfestations. Here's why. I attended an AG church where a very godly brother would just fallout in the presence of God, noone touched him! He would lay there for sometime and then start laughing almost uncontrolabilly. The effect would be people in the congregation being set free from sin habits and bondages of various kinds, healings ect... and all these things happened all at once with no preacher laying hands on people. It didn't happen all the time, maybe a few times when the presence of God seemed closer(you know what I mean).But it happened. What I've observed in the WOF movement is that they have a habit of taking something like laughing and turning it into a doctrine and teaching the masses to seek the experience rather than the Lord of the experience. In doing so they open people up to deception. But rember, for ever counterfiet there is the real thing. So I would approach the subject matter with some caution. God Bless Bro. Daryl

Guys---I understand what Bro. Neil's saying here. Sometimes being perfectly right and not accepting the cross makes us perfectly wrong. I'm for naming the charaistics of the false doctrines. But to call others who profess the "born again experience " and call Jesus Lord,,,,,,False prophets? Man, I don't know. There's very few that I would do that to and that only after much background study of them , thier doctrine, and thier lives, and how it all squares with scripture, then after a long season of prayer with fastings, then and only then I might be willing to openly and publically name an individual as false. NOTE I said might which means maybe but not nessarily. Jam 3:13 Who is wise and intelligent among you? let him shew out of the good behaviour his works in meekness of wisdom, Jam 3:14 and if bitter zeal ye have, and rivalry in your heart, glory not, nor lie against the truth; Jam 3:15 this wisdom is not descending from above, but earthly, physical, demon-like, Jam 3:16 for where zeal and rivalry are , there is insurrection and every evil matter; Jam 3:17 and the wisdom from above, first, indeed, is pure, then peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of kindness and good fruits, uncontentious, and unhypocritical: -- Jam 3:18 and the fruit of the righteousness in peace is sown to those making peace.Phi 3:18 (For many are walking, of whom I have told you often and now tell you even weeping, as the enemies of the cross of Christ; Phi 3:19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, those who mind earthly things.) In Christ Brother Daryl

KrispyKrittr wrote:I quit... you win. I'll discuss, but I wont fight with a brother. But the discussion is over for me.Great, now we can talk about important stuff. ;-)

KrispyKrittr wrote:I dont see how anyone can ignore it, and/or "fight" (as seems to be what Zeke wants to do) against it....Zeke has been antagonistic about it from the very first post, vowing to "fight" me. You still don't get it? :-? Well good on you claiming the moral high ground on this issue. I still thought that it was a good discussion. :-D If I am wrong about what I have said in reponse to what you have brought forth, someone please PM me. For in all issues, as I have said from the beginning, you may be right but be totally wrong.Enjoy your day,

But two things have been proven here. #1, false teachings and practices can not be discussed civily here. #2, truth does not matter, no one will will dare weigh doctrine and practices against scripture.KrispyI suggest you re-think these conclusions. There may be other lessons to be learned from this encounter.