From: sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 17:02:59 EDT
Admittedly, I do not follow Kenneth Copeland but does suspect include Billy
Graham and Joyce Meyer (people that I do follow). The Bible clearly states,
however, that health, wealth, and prosperity are gifts from God.
3 John 2 Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health,
just as your soul prospers.
Psalm 35:27 Let them shout for joy and be glad,
Who favor my righteous cause;
And let them say continually,
"Let the LORD be magnified,
Who has pleasure in the prosperity of His servant."
Deuteronomy 8:28 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the
ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your
forefathers, as it is today.
Of course, if you don't believe in the errancy of the Bible, these don't really
matter.
Sheila
Quoting "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>:
> I think that a lot of folks would view ministries like
> Copeland's which promote a "health, wealth, and
> prosperity" gospel, as theologically suspect at best,
> regardless of their views on inerrancy.
>
>
> --- sheila-mcginty@geotec.net wrote:
> > Southern Baptists believe in the inerrancy of the
> > scripture. They are rarely
> > called a cult or splinter group. Most major
> > evangelists including Oral
> > Roberts, Marilyn Hickey, Joyce Meyer, Billy Joe
> > Daugherty, Jesse Duplantis,
> > Kenneth Copeland, and Billy Graham (to say the
> > least) also believe in the
> > errancy of the scriptures. They could hardly be
> > labeled as cult leaders.
> >
> > Sheila
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting ronschoo <ronschoo@pacbell.net>:
> >
> > > I would like to raise another issue. I think
> > Howard is right in his
> > > assessment of the purpose and pitfalls of
> > concordism. If we grant the
> > > purpose of deeming Scripture as inerrant as
> > protecting and verifying
> > > our
> > > faith, then why not look at those groups who hold
> > tightly to this
> > > notion.
> > > What do we see? Most of what are called cults fall
> > into this category.
> > > Most
> > > of splinter groups from larger denominations are
> > believers in inerrancy.
> > > So,
> > > it seems obvious to me that this doctrine does not
> > produce sound
> > > doctrine or
> > > unity. Again, do the people who believe most
> > closely to the Bible being
> > > spoken by God live the most Christ-like lives? If
> > the answer to this is
> > > no,
> > > then the reason it has to be maintained is called
> > into question.
> > >
> > > Ron Schooler
> > > Los Angeles, CA
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> > > To: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
> > > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:53 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Concordist sequence--why be a
> > concordist?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Terry M. Gray wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > George Murphy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whether or not scripture is described
> > as "revelation" is a
> > > > > >matter of theological
> > > > > >opinion. The Bible itself never uses the
> > word of itself or parts
> > > of
> > > > > >itself. I think
> > > > > >it's better to make clear the distinction
> > between God's
> > > > > >self-revelation in the history
> > > > > >of Israel culminating in Christ and the
> > inspired written witness
> > > to
> > > > > >it. All sorts of
> > > > > >aberrations can result (though of course they
> > don't have to) if
> > > one
> > > > > >tries to read
> > > > > >scripture as an inerrant or infallible text
> > independent of its
> > > > > >function as witness to
> > > > > >revelation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Earlier I quoted snippets from the
> > ELCA constitution. More
> > > > > >fully, after
> > > > > >speaking of Christ and proclamation of law &
> > gospel, it says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The canonical scriptures of the Old
> > and New Testaments are
> > > > > >the written Word of
> > > > > >God. Inspired by God's Spirit speaking
> > through their authors,
> > > they
> > > > > >record and announce
> > > > > >God's revaltion in Jesus Christ. Through
> > them God's Spirit speaks
> > > > > >to us to create and
> > > > > >sustain Christian faith and fellowship for
> > service in the world."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course this is not an infallible
> > definition but I think
> > > is
> > > > > >a useful one. It
> > > > > >does not use the term "inerrant", I think
> > wisely. The term is so
> > > loaded with
> > > > > >connotations of "accurate historical account"
> > that I'm afraid it's
> > > pretty much
> > > > > >unsalvageable.
> > > > >
> > > > > George,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not arguing here for inerrancy, but
> > "merely" inspiration--that
> > > > > scripture is God-breathed and thus God's
> > definitive and unique
> > > > > written Word recording and announcing God's
> > revelation in
> > > redemptive
> > > > > history. It is fully legitimate to call it
> > God's Word. Whether you
> > > > > call that revelation is a semantic issue. In
> > the much of the modern
> > > > > parlance, "witness to" puts the full weight on
> > the human faith
> > > > > community's reflection. Our on-going
> > reflections are seen to be of
> > > > > the same flavor. Inspiration is seen in a much
> > more generic sense
> > > > > ("the awesome nature scene 'inspired' me to
> > write this poem" or
> > > > > "watching God do this amazing miracle
> > 'inspired' me to write about
> > > > > it") than the unique "God-breathed" or
> > prophetic "carried along by
> > > > > the Spirit" meaning that is fouind in
> > scripture. This fully human
> > > > > "witness to" is not the traditional view--it
> > is not the view
> > > > > reflected in the ELCA statement from which you
> > have quoted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ELCA statement also rightly points to the
> > work of the Spirit
> > > > > through the scriptures. This promise and
> > expectation cannot be made
> > > > > in reference to any other human writings.
> > > > >
> > > > > You may be correct in your assessment about
> > the connotations of the
> > > > > word "inerrancy" although I know of plenty of
> > conservative Reformed
> > > > > theologians who understand it in a reasonably
> > nuanced way that
> > > avoids
> > > > > the problems you attach to it--including B.B.
> > Warfield and A.A.
> > > Hodge
> > > > > who wrote the original piece in *The
> > Fundamentals*. Many modern
> > > > > inerrantists are much less nuanced then those
> > who defined the term.
> > > >
> > > > I think you bring out one of the problems with
> > "witness" language.
> > > In
> > > modern
> > > > religious usage it often means testifying about
> > one's own subjective
> > > experience. But
> > > > while the Bible does have this element ("Did not
> > our hearts burn
> > > within us
> > > ...?"), the
> > > > primary sense in which it's to be understood as
> > witnessing is in
> > > saying
> > > what God has
> > > > done. That is, e.g., the sense in which the
> > apostles are seen as
> > > witnesses of the
> > > > resurrection (Acts 1:22).
> > > >
> > > > The inspiration of scripture should not be
> > separated too sharply from
> > > the
> > > > activity of the Spirit in the ongoing preaching
> > and teaching of the
> > > church. Bot OTOH,
> > > > preaching and teaching must be the proclamation
> > and explication of
> > > Christ
> > > on the basis
> > > > of scripture. They cannot, as Enthusiasts
> > imagine,
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
Sheila McGinty
sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through OnRAMP/GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 17:04:08 EDT