Bible teacher Derek Prince dies at 88
Steve Cleary
http://worldnetdaily.com
Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince died
last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88.
The author of more than 45 books had a daily radio broadcast, "Today
With Derek Prince," that reached more than half the world and included
translations into Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Malagasy, Mongolian,
Russian, Samoan, Spanish and Tongan.
Prince was born in Bangalore, India, into a British military family.
He was educated as a scholar of Greek and Latin at Eton College and
Cambridge University, England, where he held a Fellowship in Ancient
and Modern Philosophy at King's College.
According to his biography, as a student he was a philosopher and
self-proclaimed atheist. His conversion came during service in the
British Medical Corps during World War II, "through a powerful
encounter with Christ," after he began to study the Bible as a
philosophical work.
Prince was an important figure in the charismatic renewal movement of
the 1960s and 1970s among mainline Protestant denominations in the
United States.
In 1969, he teamed with Bible teachers Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson
and Don Basham, and later Ern Baxter, to lead what became known as the
"discipling" or "shepherding movement." The movement became highly
controversial as reports circulated of manipulation and control by
leaders. Prince withdrew in 1983, saying, "I believe we were guilty of
the Galatian error: having begun in the Spirit, we quickly degenerated
into the flesh."
"In the light of this," he said, "I repented of my involvement and
renounced the error. I deeply regret the damage that was done to the
body of Christ and in the lives of many promising young men and
women."
Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, called Prince the
"quintesenntial charismatic Bible scholar," noting many evangelical
Christians have looked down on charismatics as being theologically
weak.
"He showed the church world you can be both a man of the Holy Spirit
and a man of the Word," Grady told WorldNetDaily.
He said Prince was known for his emphasis on "Christian foundations"
and taught many how to "lay down the proper foundation for their walk
with Christ."
Steve Cleary
Comment: It does seem as if a number of Christian leaders are dying
this week.
Peter Ould
> From WorldNetDaily.com (USA), Sep. 24, 2003
> http://worldnetdaily.com
>
> Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince died
> last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88.
>
Finally, somebody who is worth mourning.
--
Peter Ould
www.peter-ould.net
"The atonement is, above all, a movement of God to man,
not in the first place a movement of man to God"
Gustav Aulén
Pete Broadbent
> Steve Cleary wrote:
>> From WorldNetDaily.com (USA), Sep. 24, 2003
>> http://worldnetdaily.com
>>
>> Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince died
>> last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88.
>>
>
> Finally, somebody who is worth mourning.
You probably ought to repent of taht one:
I refer you to Donne's Devotions on Emergent Occasions:
"Now, this bell tolling softly for another, says to me: Thou must die.
Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it
tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as
that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for
me, and I know not that. The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her
actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that
action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which
is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when
she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and
is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book,
but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so
translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by
age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in
every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again
for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As
therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only,
but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much
more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness. There was a
contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and
estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to
prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring
first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell
that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by
rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his,
whose indeed it is. The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and
though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought
upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it
rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who
bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can
remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this
world?
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy
friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am
involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell
tolls; it tolls for thee."
--
Pete Broadbent
Richard Emblem
<nospam!t...@nks.co.uk> writes:
>Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince died
>last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88
Sorry to hear that, he was a great man of God and an inspirational teacher.
May he rest in peace.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Doug
news:bkuikh$62m1j$1...@ID-87143.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Steve Cleary wrote:
> > From WorldNetDaily.com (USA), Sep. 24, 2003
> > http://worldnetdaily.com
> >
> > Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince died
> > last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88.
> >
>
> Finally, somebody who is worth mourning.
>
been as easy to accuse of the h word as some of this week's crop of wheat
and tares, I personally find it not only disturbing but dangerous to have
the kind of teaching he gave on Israel so widely disseminated and respected.
It seems profoundly wrong to say, for example "The current restoration of
the Jewish people is a unique mark of God's favor. In God's calendar, there
is a set time to favor Zion. I believe we are either living in it now or we
are approaching it."
http://www.dpmusa.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID309366|CHID576062|CIID1484422,00.html
This is taking bits of the Bible, namely OT promises to Israel, ignoring
most of the NT reapplication of promises about the land, and all of the OT
prophets that make residence in the land conditional on moral behaviour, and
simply say beacuse Israel has got power, God favours them, even when they
abuse it.
It may be evangelical, but it ain't biblical.
--
Doug
Peter Ould
That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two is that
he's Nicene.
Peter O
Steven Carr
wrote:
>Prince was born in Bangalore, India, into a British military family.
>He was educated as a scholar of Greek and Latin at Eton College and
>Cambridge University, England, where he held a Fellowship in Ancient
>and Modern Philosophy at King's College.
>According to his biography, as a student he was a philosopher and
>self-proclaimed atheist.
Was this at a time when there was compulsory chapel at Cambridge?
When did this practice cease?
<skip>
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Gareth McCaughan
> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two is that
> he's Nicene.
Which is obviously why he died a few days after the other two:
Nicene guys finish last.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Kevin Donnelly
<nospam!t...@nks.co.uk> writes
So it seems; I endorse Pete's citation of Donne, that any man's death
diminishes me, though I have to admit that, in this many-centred world,
I'd never heard of any of these people until now. Thanks to all for
these obits.
KD
--
Kevin Donnelly
Michael J Davis
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> writes
>Peter Ould wrote:
>
>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two is that
>> he's Nicene.
>
>Which is obviously why he died a few days after the other two:
>Nicene guys finish last.
>
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Richard Emblem
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> writes:
>Peter Ould wrote:
>
>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two is
>that
>> he's Nicene.
>
>Which is obviously why he died a few days after the other two:
>Nicene guys finish last.
Grrroooaan! Help yourself to jelly babies :-)
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two is that
>he's Nicene.
Feel free to point out where Kenneth Hagin's views were non-Nicene.
(I'll grant you that Garner Ted Armstrong's views were almost certanly
non-Nicene, but I'm still not certain that they were so far from the truth
as to exclude him from salvation).
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"Nothing takes the past away like the future"
Peter Ould
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:03 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>>
>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two
>> is that he's Nicene.
>
> Feel free to point out where Kenneth Hagin's views were non-Nicene.
"The believer is as much an incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. ... If we
ever wake up and realize who we are, we'll start doing the work that we're
supposed to do. Because the church hasn't realized yet that they are Christ.
That's who they are. They are Christ."
"The Incarnation," The Word of Faith, 12/80
"Man was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's
presence without any consciousness of inferiority,"
"Man was created on terms of equality with God.he lives on terms equal with
God." " The believer is called Christ, that's who we are, we're Christ!"
This is Kenneth Copeland, Hagin's protege:
"So you see, that faith didn't come billowing out of some giant monster
somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very uncanny the way
he's very much like you and me. A being that stands somewhere around 6'-2",
6-3", that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred
pounds or a little better, has a span of 9 inches across. Glory to God!
Hallelujah!"
"Spirit soul and a body" KCM 1985 audio #01-0601 side 1
God is a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears,
nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet." (Kenneth Copeland ministry
letter, 21 July 1977.)
"Why didn't Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during His 33 years on
earth? For one single reason. He hadn't come to earth as God, He'd come as
man." " K. Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory magazine, Aug. 8, 1988.
p.8.
Want more? Mark, these are the kind of people that "God Channel" puts on day
after day!!!!!
Peter O
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:03 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>>
>>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two
>>> is that he's Nicene.
>>
>> Feel free to point out where Kenneth Hagin's views were non-Nicene.
>
>"The believer is as much an incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. ... If we
>ever wake up and realize who we are, we'll start doing the work that we're
>supposed to do. Because the church hasn't realized yet that they are Christ.
>That's who they are. They are Christ."
>"The Incarnation," The Word of Faith, 12/80
The church is Christ. Unless, that is, you consider the body of something
to be something other than that something. Which would be something absurd,
IMO. You can argue that this isn't how the Church isn't normally described,
and I'd agree with you. But Hagin makes a very valid point here, by
highlighting exactly what it means to be the body of Christ.
>"Man was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's
>presence without any consciousness of inferiority,"
Isn't this exactly what Genesis says?
>"Man was created on terms of equality with God.he lives on terms equal with
>God." " The believer is called Christ, that's who we are, we're Christ!"
See above.
>This is Kenneth Copeland, Hagin's protege:
>"So you see, that faith didn't come billowing out of some giant monster
>somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very uncanny the way
>he's very much like you and me. A being that stands somewhere around 6'-2",
>6-3", that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred
>pounds or a little better, has a span of 9 inches across. Glory to God!
>Hallelujah!"
>"Spirit soul and a body" KCM 1985 audio #01-0601 side 1
Difficult to answer this one without knowing the context, but if Copeland
is suggesting that Jesus was much the same as any other human, except a bit
taller, then that doesn't seem all that exciting.
>God is a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears,
>nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet." (Kenneth Copeland ministry
>letter, 21 July 1977.)
The term "spirit being" should alert the reader to the fact that the
descriptions that follow are clearly metaphorical. The point is that God
has senses that can be described in terms analogous to ours.
>"Why didn't Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during His 33 years on
>earth? For one single reason. He hadn't come to earth as God, He'd come as
>man." " K. Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory magazine, Aug. 8, 1988.
>p.8.
Seems pretty accurate to me. Jesus didn't proclaim himself openly as God -
the nearest he came to that were a few cryptic comments in public and more
explicit remarks to his inner circle of followers.
>Want more? Mark, these are the kind of people that "God Channel" puts on day
>after day!!!!!
I reserve comment on the quality of God TV's output (except, that is, for
the shows featuring friends of mine, which are clearly first-rate!). But,
if you actually watched some of it instead of criticising it, then I think
you'd find that you'd agree with a lot more than you think you do.
Incidentally, have you actually listened to or read the sermons and
articles you are quoting, or are you just quoting someone else who might
have done so? If the latter, how can you be sure that the quotes are not
taken out of context, or even accurately quoted at all?
Let me finish with a quote, also from Kenneth Copeland:
"People accuse me of being 'New Age'. They say that I'm saying that humans
are God. That's rubbish. I am not, in any way, promoting 'New Age' ideas.
And I'm not saying that we are God. But I can understand why they think
that. The problem is that human language simply isn't enough to describe
all that God is. But human language is all that we've got, at least when
we're talking to each other. So I don't apologise for saying some things
that might sound a bit flakey, or unorthodox. Because you've got to go
beyond the limitations of words, and see the reality behind them. Because
if words are all you've got, then you've actually got nothing at all."
(Unpublished sermon, Brighton 1988, from my own notes)
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"You gotta live with your dreams, don't make them so hard"
Kim Tame
wrote:
>
>That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two is that
>he's Nicene.
>
>Peter O
I might be being picky here, but where does the Bible say you have to
be Nicene?
--
Kim
"We don't deserve forgiveness. We need forgiveness."
R. Giles
Peter Ould
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:03 +0100, "Peter Ould" <ma...@peter-ould.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other two
>> is that he's Nicene.
>>
>> Peter O
>
> I might be being picky here, but where does the Bible say you have to
> be Nicene?
>
By definition, the Nicene Creed defines the core essentials of Christianity.
This is accepted by all churches, whether Protestant, RC or Eastern /
Coptic.
Peter O
Peter Ould
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:48:50 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:03 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>>
>>>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other
>>>> two is that he's Nicene.
>>>
>>> Feel free to point out where Kenneth Hagin's views were non-Nicene.
>>
>> "The believer is as much an incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. ...
>> If we ever wake up and realize who we are, we'll start doing the
>> work that we're supposed to do. Because the church hasn't realized
>> yet that they are Christ. That's who they are. They are Christ."
>> "The Incarnation," The Word of Faith, 12/80
>
> The church is Christ. Unless, that is, you consider the body of
> something to be something other than that something. Which would be
> something absurd, IMO. You can argue that this isn't how the Church
> isn't normally described, and I'd agree with you. But Hagin makes a
> very valid point here, by highlighting exactly what it means to be
> the body of Christ.
Context Mark context. The context is the ontological state of the believer.
Hagin claims there is no ontological difference between a Christian and
Christ.
That is heresy.
>
>> "Man was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand
>> in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority,"
>
> Isn't this exactly what Genesis says?
No, because in context Hagin elevates the believer to the same ontological
status as the Son.
That is heresy.
>
>> "Man was created on terms of equality with God.he lives on terms
>> equal with God." " The believer is called Christ, that's who we are,
>> we're Christ!"
>
> See above.
See above
That is heresy.
>
>> This is Kenneth Copeland, Hagin's protege:
>> "So you see, that faith didn't come billowing out of some giant
>> monster somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very
>> uncanny the way he's very much like you and me. A being that stands
>> somewhere around 6'-2", 6-3", that weighs somewhere in the
>> neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds or a little better, has a
>> span of 9 inches across. Glory to God! Hallelujah!"
>> "Spirit soul and a body" KCM 1985 audio #01-0601 side 1
>
> Difficult to answer this one without knowing the context, but if
> Copeland is suggesting that Jesus was much the same as any other
> human, except a bit taller, then that doesn't seem all that exciting.
He's talking about the Father.
That is heresy.
>
>> God is a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids,
>> ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet." (Kenneth
>> Copeland ministry letter, 21 July 1977.)
>
> The term "spirit being" should alert the reader to the fact that the
> descriptions that follow are clearly metaphorical. The point is that
> God has senses that can be described in terms analogous to ours.
He's talking about the physical nature of the Father
That is heresy
>
>> "Why didn't Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during His 33 years
>> on earth? For one single reason. He hadn't come to earth as God,
>> He'd come as man." " K. Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory
>> magazine, Aug. 8, 1988. p.8.
>
> Seems pretty accurate to me. Jesus didn't proclaim himself openly as
> God - the nearest he came to that were a few cryptic comments in
> public and more explicit remarks to his inner circle of followers.
>
Copeland denies very clearly (in context) the dual nature of the
incarnation.
That is heresy
Peter Ould
Robert Marshall
> Kim Tame wrote:
>>
>> I might be being picky here, but where does the Bible say you have
>> to be Nicene?
>>
>
> By definition, the Nicene Creed defines the core essentials of
> Christianity. This is accepted by all churches, whether Protestant,
> RC or Eastern / Coptic.
>
I thought the Orthodox had a problem with (one word of[1]) the Nicene Creed.
And I'm not sure where that definition is
Robert
[1] in the English version
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich
Kim Tame
wrote:
By whose definition?
Most churches accept the Nicene creed. Some completely ignore it.
I'm just surprised you see the creed as definitive rather than
scripture.
Peter Ould
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:26:57 +0100, "Peter Ould" <ma...@peter-ould.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Kim Tame wrote:
>>> ould.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other
>>>> two is that he's Nicene.
>>>>
>>>> Peter O
>>>
>>> I might be being picky here, but where does the Bible say you have
>>> to be Nicene?
>>>
>>
>> By definition, the Nicene Creed defines the core essentials of
>> Christianity. This is accepted by all churches, whether Protestant,
>> RC or Eastern / Coptic.
>>
>> Peter O
>
> By whose definition?
>
> Most churches accept the Nicene creed. Some completely ignore it.
> I'm just surprised you see the creed as definitive rather than
> scripture.
>
The Creed lays out what Scripture already defines. Are you saying that the
Nicene Creed is unScriptural? If not, why did you make your point?
Peter O
Gareth McCaughan
[he quoted from Ken Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, and Mark suggested
that what they were saying isn't so very heretical...]
> Context Mark context. The context is the ontological state of the believer.
> Hagin claims there is no ontological difference between a Christian and
> Christ.
[etc]
You didn't actually provide any context, so it's hardly
unreasonable for Mark not to know the things you're now
saying -- and, further, it's hardly unreasonable if Mark
declines to agree with your assertions about the context
now that you've made them.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:48:50 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:55:03 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to
>>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a fair point, but the one thing Prince has over the other
>>>>> two is that he's Nicene.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to point out where Kenneth Hagin's views were non-Nicene.
>>>
>>> "The believer is as much an incarnation of God as Jesus Christ. ...
>>> If we ever wake up and realize who we are, we'll start doing the
>>> work that we're supposed to do. Because the church hasn't realized
>>> yet that they are Christ. That's who they are. They are Christ."
>>> "The Incarnation," The Word of Faith, 12/80
>>
>> The church is Christ. Unless, that is, you consider the body of
>> something to be something other than that something. Which would be
>> something absurd, IMO. You can argue that this isn't how the Church
>> isn't normally described, and I'd agree with you. But Hagin makes a
>> very valid point here, by highlighting exactly what it means to be
>> the body of Christ.
>
>Context Mark context. The context is the ontological state of the believer.
What is the context? Have you read the full text of the article that you
are quoting?
>Hagin claims there is no ontological difference between a Christian and
>Christ.
The word "ontological" doesnt appear in the section you quoted, and doesn't
seem to me to be implied by the wording.
>That is heresy.
>
>
>>
>>> "Man was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand
>>> in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority,"
>>
>> Isn't this exactly what Genesis says?
>
>No, because in context Hagin elevates the believer to the same ontological
>status as the Son.
What is the context that makes it clear that this is what Hagin is doing?
It isn't clear from the extract that this is the case.
>That is heresy.
>
>>
>>> "Man was created on terms of equality with God.he lives on terms
>>> equal with God." " The believer is called Christ, that's who we are,
>>> we're Christ!"
>>
>> See above.
>
>See above
See above.
>That is heresy.
>
>>
>>> This is Kenneth Copeland, Hagin's protege:
>>> "So you see, that faith didn't come billowing out of some giant
>>> monster somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very
>>> uncanny the way he's very much like you and me. A being that stands
>>> somewhere around 6'-2", 6-3", that weighs somewhere in the
>>> neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds or a little better, has a
>>> span of 9 inches across. Glory to God! Hallelujah!"
>>> "Spirit soul and a body" KCM 1985 audio #01-0601 side 1
>>
>> Difficult to answer this one without knowing the context, but if
>> Copeland is suggesting that Jesus was much the same as any other
>> human, except a bit taller, then that doesn't seem all that exciting.
>
>He's talking about the Father.
Where does it say that?
>That is heresy.
>
>>
>>> God is a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids,
>>> ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet." (Kenneth
>>> Copeland ministry letter, 21 July 1977.)
>>
>> The term "spirit being" should alert the reader to the fact that the
>> descriptions that follow are clearly metaphorical. The point is that
>> God has senses that can be described in terms analogous to ours.
>
>He's talking about the physical nature of the Father
Where does it say that?
>
>That is heresy
>
>>
>>> "Why didn't Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during His 33 years
>>> on earth? For one single reason. He hadn't come to earth as God,
>>> He'd come as man." " K. Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory
>>> magazine, Aug. 8, 1988. p.8.
>>
>> Seems pretty accurate to me. Jesus didn't proclaim himself openly as
>> God - the nearest he came to that were a few cryptic comments in
>> public and more explicit remarks to his inner circle of followers.
>>
>
>Copeland denies very clearly (in context) the dual nature of the
>incarnation.
Where is the context that makes this clear? The wording in the extract is
ambiguous. I note that you've snipped my quote from Copeland where he
acknowledges the problems this can cause.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"You surround me like a winter fog, you've come and burned me
with a kiss"
Kim Tame
wrote:
No, just wondering why you point to the Nicene Creed as defining the
essentials of Christianity, not the Bible. When not all Christians do
agree with all of it, as Robert has pointed out.
I thought the Bible had a higher position for you than tradition,
that's all.
Peter Ould
It's not a get out Gareth and you know it. The quotes are obviously
heretical (the ones attributing actual physical charactetistics to the
Father) and no "give me the context" will remove that. If you want to show
how those quotes DON'T mean what they appear to mean, by all means go ahead.
Otherwise we should start to face up to the fact that some of the "leading
Christians" on our TV screens may be no such thing.
Word / Faith is one of the most pernicious heresies of the twentieth /
twentyfirst century and needs to be dealt with (and I have no problem going
to the sin bin for saying it).
Peter O
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> Peter Ould wrote:
>>
>> [he quoted from Ken Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, and Mark suggested
>> that what they were saying isn't so very heretical...]
>>> Context Mark context. The context is the ontological state of the
>>> believer. Hagin claims there is no ontological difference between a
>>> Christian and Christ. [etc]
>>
>> You didn't actually provide any context, so it's hardly
>> unreasonable for Mark not to know the things you're now
>> saying -- and, further, it's hardly unreasonable if Mark
>> declines to agree with your assertions about the context
>> now that you've made them.
>
> It's not a get out Gareth and you know it.
Not only do I not "know it", I don't even know what you mean.
I think that if you say "the context shows X" and don't
provide any information about the context, then you're
just making unsupported assertions. Let's see *how* the
context shows those things.
> The quotes are obviously
> heretical (the ones attributing actual physical characteristics to the
> Father) and no "give me the context" will remove that.
Since Mark read them and didn't think them heretical,
and since Mark is not a heretic, I think it's clear
that the quotations are not *obviously* heretical. As
for the context, it's *you* who said that the context
shows that they mean something worse than what Mark
interprets them as meaning. So, since you say the context
does that, tell us more about the context. How does the
context show that Mark's interpretation is too generous?
> If you want to show
> how those quotes DON'T mean what they appear to mean, by all means go ahead.
Mark gave possible explanations of those quotations which
would make them, at any rate, not grossly heretical.
> Otherwise we should start to face up to the fact that some of the "leading
> Christians" on our TV screens may be no such thing.
I wouldn't know: I don't have a TV screen.
> Word / Faith is one of the most pernicious heresies of the twentieth /
> twentyfirst century and needs to be dealt with (and I have no problem going
> to the sin bin for saying it).
I don't know enough about the movement to know whether you're
right or not. I do know enough about it to know that I profoundly
disagree with, and disapprove of, some parts of what it says.
But right now we aren't only talking about the Word/Faith movement
in general, we're talking about a particular set of quotations
from Kenneths Hagin and Copeland, and I think you are saying
that those quotations imply more than they actually do.
Eric Potts
Peter, you might have said that your reply to Mark - to which you
referred me - was in a different thread. Not all of us read every
thread in the group you know. I was wondering why I hadn't come across
it.
Having now read it, I am not impressed with your arguments.
a) "heresy" is different depending on who is doing the defining.
I assume you don't believe the councils of the Church are infallible.
Maybe, sometimes, the "heretics" have a point, but just don't express
it in a way readily assimilable to traditional doctrine. If so, they
may not after all be leading people astray, and it is dangerous to
assume so.
b) If you are looking to the creeds for definition of doctrine, where
do you draw the line? After all, these are simply statements of faith
drawn up by fallible councils of Christian leaders. They make useful,
indeed very valuable reference points, but they are hardly to be
classified, by Protestants at least, as direct revelation.
c) You also claimed that Hagin added nothing to the wider Church, but
have offered no evidence to back up your assertion. If one person was
able to discover Christ through Hagin's life and ministry, then he has
added a great deal to the wider Church. As I said earlier, I know
nothing about the man, but there are obviously those, whom even you
would acknowledge as Christ ain brothers I hope, who have clearly
found some riches in Hagin's work.
Thus, you have not backed up your assertion at all effectively.
Eric.
----
Eric Potts
Lowestoft, England
loine...@aol.com does not accept email; you can send to me as revericpotts at the same ISP
Peter Ould
Yes - The context shows that Hagin's Christology is flawed. If you don't
think so, demonstrate otherwise.
>
>> Hagin claims there is no ontological difference between a Christian
>> and Christ.
>
> The word "ontological" doesnt appear in the section you quoted, and
> doesn't seem to me to be implied by the wording.
Then you are simply ignoring what is there in the text.
Do you Mark think that any human could have done what Jesus did, because
that's what Hagin taught? Yes or No?
>
>> That is heresy.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> "Man was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand
>>>> in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority,"
>>>
>>> Isn't this exactly what Genesis says?
>>
>> No, because in context Hagin elevates the believer to the same
>> ontological status as the Son.
>
> What is the context that makes it clear that this is what Hagin is
> doing? It isn't clear from the extract that this is the case.
>
It's very clear. Hagin argues that man in ontologically identical to God.
What else does he mean here? Have you listened to the tape?
That is heresy.
>>>
>>>> This is Kenneth Copeland, Hagin's protege:
>>>> "So you see, that faith didn't come billowing out of some giant
>>>> monster somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very
>>>> uncanny the way he's very much like you and me. A being that stands
>>>> somewhere around 6'-2", 6-3", that weighs somewhere in the
>>>> neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds or a little better, has
>>>> a span of 9 inches across. Glory to God! Hallelujah!"
>>>> "Spirit soul and a body" KCM 1985 audio #01-0601 side 1
>>>
>>> Difficult to answer this one without knowing the context, but if
>>> Copeland is suggesting that Jesus was much the same as any other
>>> human, except a bit taller, then that doesn't seem all that
>>> exciting.
>>
>> He's talking about the Father.
>
> Where does it say that?
Listen to the tape. Why do you inisist that I am lying about the context?
>
>> That is heresy.
>>
>>>
>>>> God is a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and
>>>> eyelids, ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet."
>>>> (Kenneth Copeland ministry letter, 21 July 1977.)
>>>
>>> The term "spirit being" should alert the reader to the fact that the
>>> descriptions that follow are clearly metaphorical. The point is that
>>> God has senses that can be described in terms analogous to ours.
>>
>> He's talking about the physical nature of the Father
>
> Where does it say that?
See above.
Peter O
Mark Goodge
typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:25:57 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:48:50 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to
>>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>> Context Mark context. The context is the ontological state of the
>>> believer.
>>
>> What is the context? Have you read the full text of the article that
>> you are quoting?
>
>Yes - The context shows that Hagin's Christology is flawed. If you don't
>think so, demonstrate otherwise.
In that case, please can you quote the context that supports your
assertion. The extract you quoted doesn't, at all.
>>
>>> Hagin claims there is no ontological difference between a Christian
>>> and Christ.
>>
>> The word "ontological" doesnt appear in the section you quoted, and
>> doesn't seem to me to be implied by the wording.
>
>Then you are simply ignoring what is there in the text.
I'm going by what you quoted. If you can provide an additional extract to
show that Hagin is, indeed, referring to the ontological nature of
humanity, then by all means do so. But you can't simply assert that this is
what he means without providing the evidence to back it up.
>> Where does it say that?
>
>Listen to the tape. Why do you inisist that I am lying about the context?
I'm not saying that you're lying. I'm saying that you're mistaken, probably
because you don't have the full transcript, you're merely going by what
other people have themselves taken out of context and put on a website.
I note that you still haven't responded to my quote from a sermon that I
heard Kenneth Copeland preach. Are you saying that I'm lying, or that he
was, or what?
Mark
--
--> http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! <--
"A pocket full of mumbles, such are promises"
Michael J Davis
<ma...@peter-ould.net> writes
>
>The Creed lays out what Scripture already defines. Are you saying that the
>Nicene Creed is unScriptural? If not, why did you make your point?
Neither Jesus nor St Paul said that one gets to heaven by having the
right doctrine. (More salvation by works - they get everywhere, don't
they?)
We are to beware of false teachers, and false doctrines but that doesn't
mean that even those false teachers are hell-bent.
Michael Gaskell
news:87brt6w...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
If I had made those quotes, would you consider them to be "heretical"?
Michael
Ken Down
<sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought the Orthodox had a problem with (one word of[1]) the Nicene
> Creed. And I'm not sure where that definition is
If you are referring to the filioque clause then the problem is that it does
not appear in the Nicene Creed. The problem the Orthodox have is that the
Western church added it to the Nicene Creed.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Gareth McCaughan
[I said to Peter Ould, inter alia:]
>> I don't know enough about the movement to know whether you're
>> right or not. I do know enough about it to know that I profoundly
>> disagree with, and disapprove of, some parts of what it says.
>> But right now we aren't only talking about the Word/Faith movement
>> in general, we're talking about a particular set of quotations
>> from Kenneths Hagin and Copeland, and I think you are saying
>> that those quotations imply more than they actually do.
>
> If I had made those quotes, would you consider them to be "heretical"?
I wouldn't know whether they were or not. I'd probably
ask you for clarification. Why do you ask? I hope it isn't
because you think I've called you a heretic; I haven't.
Robert Marshall
> In article <m1isnes...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk>, Robert
> Marshall
> <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I thought the Orthodox had a problem with (one word of[1]) the
>> Nicene Creed.
>
> If you are referring to the filioque clause then the problem is that
> it does not appear in the Nicene Creed. The problem the Orthodox
> have is that the Western church added it to the Nicene Creed.
>
So therefore most of here are not Nicene? Well not if we affirm the
Western version of that creed
Robert
Robert Marshall
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Ken Down wrote:
> In article <m1isnes...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk>, Robert
> Marshall
> <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I thought the Orthodox had a problem with (one word of[1]) the
>> Nicene Creed.
>
> If you are referring to the filioque clause then the problem is that
> it does not appear in the Nicene Creed. The problem the Orthodox
> have is that the Western church added it to the Nicene Creed.
>
So,. unless you're Orthodox and you affirm the creed with the
filioque, you're not Nicene. Hmmm
Robert
--
To preserve the silence within -- amid all the noise. To
remain open and quiet no matter how many tramp across the
parade ground in whirling dust under an arid sky.
-- Dag Hammarskjöld
Gareth McCaughan
>>> I thought the Orthodox had a problem with (one word of[1]) the
>>> Nicene Creed.
>>
>> If you are referring to the filioque clause then the problem is that
>> it does not appear in the Nicene Creed. The problem the Orthodox
>> have is that the Western church added it to the Nicene Creed.
>
> So,. unless you're Orthodox and you affirm the creed with the
> filioque, you're not Nicene. Hmmm
If you affirm the creed with the filioque then I think you're
affirming everything the Nicene creed says. (It doesn't, after
all, say "who proceeds from the father and not from the son".)
So, taking "Nicene" to mean "affirming everything that's in
the Nicene creed", I think we're safe :-).
Robert Marshall
> Steve Cleary wrote:
>>
>> Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince
>> died last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88.
>>
>
> Finally, somebody who is worth mourning.
>
<waking up>
I should have mentioned Jim Thompson more LOUDLY then!
R
Ken Down
<sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> So therefore most of here are not Nicene? Well not if we affirm the
> Western version of that creed
That, I believe, is why the Orthodox won't have anything to do with us.
Ken Down
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> If you affirm the creed with the filioque then I think you're
> affirming everything the Nicene creed says. (It doesn't, after
> all, say "who proceeds from the father and not from the son".)
> So, taking "Nicene" to mean "affirming everything that's in
> the Nicene creed", I think we're safe :-).
I suspect our resident Orthodox chap would have a different opinion,
something along the lines of "this is a new definition of the word 'safe'".
Eric Potts
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:59:22 +0100, Peter Ould put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>>Yes - The context shows that Hagin's Christology is flawed. If you don't
>>think so, demonstrate otherwise.
>
>In that case, please can you quote the context that supports your
>assertion. The extract you quoted doesn't, at all.
And even if it did, who says that a flawed Christology necessarily
means that the believer has added nothing to the wider church, or led
people astray?
I guess all of us have a flawed Christology, and that goes for the
Nicene Creed too. We do the best we can, use what we hope will be
helpful formulae, and then have to work with them or try to interpret
them; doing so for a formula worked out 1700 years ago in a very
different language and culture is bound to lead to difficulties.
Can I be sure, can Peter be sure, can any of us be sure, that when we
speak of Christ, on any and every occasion we get it 100% right? I
rather doubt it.
Robert Marshall
> <waking up>
> I should have mentioned Jim Thompson more LOUDLY then!
>
I think where ever this post went it must have been asleep, as it was
posted on Saturday. Welcome home!
Robert
Robert Marshall
> Robert Marshall <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>>
>> So,. unless you're Orthodox and you affirm the creed with the
>> filioque, you're not Nicene. Hmmm
>
> If you affirm the creed with the filioque then I think you're
> affirming everything the Nicene creed says. (It doesn't, after
> all, say "who proceeds from the father and not from the son".)
> So, taking "Nicene" to mean "affirming everything that's in
> the Nicene creed", I think we're safe :-).
>
:-)
So I'm ok to include that clause about believing in pink fluffy
bunnies next time I take the service (don't think it contradicts anything else)?
Robert
Gareth McCaughan
>>> So,. unless you're Orthodox and you affirm the creed with the
>>> filioque, you're not Nicene. Hmmm
>>
>> If you affirm the creed with the filioque then I think you're
>> affirming everything the Nicene creed says. (It doesn't, after
>> all, say "who proceeds from the father and not from the son".)
>> So, taking "Nicene" to mean "affirming everything that's in
>> the Nicene creed", I think we're safe :-).
>
> :-)
>
> So I'm ok to include that clause about believing in pink fluffy
> bunnies next time I take the service (don't think it contradicts
> anything else)?
It wouldn't stop you being Nicene. It might have other
undesirable effects, though...
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar Jatt
Only the blind mourn whilst the twice-born rejoice at his returning back to Father to give his account.
Only the once-born people of flesh mourn.
--
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.
OXFORD GNOSTIC ASSOCIATION
144, Hamilton Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 5RE, U.K. Tel. 0044 118 962 3200,
By the grace (BAL) of Ram, you acquire satguru/christ within your heart,
Gnostics are the living christs (satgurus) and NOT Christians, of Living
God (Spirit) or PAAR BRAHM..
Our lectures are FREE and we do not expect any reward.
For articles on sister Christian and Sikh communities, visit:-
http://www.nijjhar.freeserve.co.uk/gnostic.htm
http://www.nijjhar.freeserve.co.uk/sikhism.htm
"Peter Ould" <ma...@peter-ould.net> wrote in message news:bkuikh$62m1j$1...@ID-87143.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Steve Cleary wrote:
> > From WorldNetDaily.com (USA), Sep. 24, 2003
> > http://worldnetdaily.com
> >
> > Internationally recognized Bible teacher and author Derek Prince died
> > last night in Jerusalem at the age of 88.
> >
>
> Finally, somebody who is worth mourning.
>
>
> --
> Peter Ould
> www.peter-ould.net
>
> "The atonement is, above all, a movement of God to man,
> not in the first place a movement of man to God"
> Gustav Aulén
michael falconer
Anyone read the book by Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Kamarazov"? In it the
Holy Father Zosismo (at least I think thats how it was spelt!) talks about
praying for people who have just died. and are even now appearing before
God. Surely they need our prayers said the holy one in Dostoevskys book.
"Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar Jatt" <rajinder...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DtHfb.1287$b73.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...