Saul And The Charismatics...

http://billrandles.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/saul-and-the-charismatics/ ^ | 02-14-12 | Bill Randles

[CynicalBear]

>>I've read here that some had their faith shaken.<<

Benny Hinn used that line often that it’s the persons faith that is weak if there is no healing. If that person came with respect for Hinn and believed he was indeed of God being told that can shake their faith especially if they are a new Christian.

>>Did he become a Christian thru her ministry?<<

As I remember it no. I believe he saw her first in 1974 when she did meetings in Israel. He followed her back to the US and continued to follow her until her death in 1976.

[presently no screen name]

You post it as if I didn't know it. And there is NO lie in HIS WORD - just so you know.

One of the main reasons many people interpret Paul's thorn in the flesh as a sickness is because of the use of the word "infirmities." Yet the word "infirmity" is not limited to sickness. The word literally means "lack or inadequacy." It was used that way in Romans 8:26 when it referred to not knowing how to pray as we should. The NIV translates this word as "weakness" not sickness.

The Lord didn't remove Paul's thorn because Jesus didn't redeem believers from persecution. In persecution, the Lord doesn't deliver believers; He strengthens them to be able to bear all things, thereby bringing glory to Himself.

The Lord was telling Paul that when he gave up, then the Lord took over.

[boatbums]

I find it interesting that in your earlier conversation, you cut-and-pasted yourself directly from this site about Job being the only person afflicted by a demon when it wasn't their fault (paraphrasing, more or less), despite the fact that I was able to come up with multiple Old Testament examples off of the top of my head, and Quix later gave a New Testament example. So if they get the facts so wrong, and spend most of their time attacking other Christians, why give them the time of day?

Your "paraphrasing" is a little off. The quote said:

Wimber's doctrine of Demonology was thoroughly unscriptural; he saw demons behind many physical illnesses, and most emotional problems, entering into people, both lost and saved, in varying degrees, either for "possession" or "oppression," so as to control all or some aspects of their lives. "There is no biblical basis for the notion that demons are free to cause illnesses outside the context of full demon possession. [And the power of Satan to enter and "possess" souls uninvited; i.e., at the whim of the demon, was ended at Christ's resurrection.] The only case in the Bible of a person who suffered from an illness caused by Satan without being demon possessed, is that of Job" (Masters, p. 86).

But even then, Satan had to secure permission from God, which would indicate that Satan and his demons have no power to inflict illnesses in the ordinary course of events. To treat illnesses on the basis of a demon needing to be expelled from a particular organ, as Wimber taught, is an idea derived from pagan religious cults and/or the priestcraft of Rome, not from the Bible. Believers will certainly do battle with the wiles and temptations wrought by Satan, "but nowhere in the New Testament is temptation resisted by a process of commanding demons to loose their hold or leave a Christian's mind or body. Satan is resisted by being denied success in the temptation. Or if he mounts an attack of depressive suggestions, he is resisted as the believer strives to keep hold of the comfort and promises of God's Word" (Masters, p. 92). (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/wimber/general.htm

I don't blame you for not liking the author's views towards Catholicism, but they gave direct quotes from Wimber as well as personal witness testimony of his workings. I thought you would want to read about John Wimber to get a balanced look at a person you admitted you knew nothing about. I find it curious that some here are so gung-ho about him and his ministry that they totally neglect to see the many ways that he failed to uphold the Gospel as well as the truths from Holy Scripture. He was also either naive or knowingly advancing New Age philosophy within his own ministry. From the same link:

Wimber was on Renovaré's "Board of Reference" -- Renovaré is an international, New Age, ecumenical organization that emanates from the religious traditions of Quakerism, whose message is that today's Church is missing out on some wonderful spiritual experiences that can only be found by studying and practicing the "meditative" and "contemplative" lifestyle "of early Christianity." In actuality, Renovaré espouses the use of the early pagan traditions of guided imagery and visualization, astral projection, "Zen" prayer techniques for meditation (i.e., Buddhism), and Jungian psychology (i.e., a blend of Eastern mysticism and Roman Catholic mystical spiritual tradition, which nicely fits the New Age model), all as means of obtaining "personal spiritual renewal" in the lives of believers. (For a more detailed analysis of Renovaré and the teachings of its co-directors, psychologist Richard Foster and William Vaswig, see Media Spotlight's Special Report of March, 1992: "Renovaré: Taking Leave of One's Senses.")

[CynicalBear]

>>For that matter, the miraculous healings that the faith movement claims, just is NOT there.<<

There are several people who have followed up on the healings claimed by Kuhlman and have exposed them as fake or at least psychosomatic. Conesus is more along the lines that she was a separatist. One of the hints when listening to a so called “faith healer” is the glory they give the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit always put Jesus first and gave glory to Him.

[grey_whiskers]

You apparently missed my point: before reading on Wimber, I evaluated the quality of the link with the information *about* him.

I concluded that the link itself was unreliable, so I didn't bother reading about Wimber.

Ergo, I still know nothing (nor care much) about him.

Cheers!

[presently no screen name]

And the excuse of the afflicted person not having enough faith doesn't wash for two reasons

Why tell me - I never said that "excuse".

That is putting yourself in the position of judging God and your fellow believer based on outward appearances, something we are not to do.

Watch yourself there! I see it is you that is judging and going on a rant of what I never said!

Do you know what kind of damage can be done to a person's walk with Christ, particularly a baby Christian, when they are told that they don't have enough faith? That is absolutely inexcusable.

Didn't Jesus talk about the mustard seed, the smallest of seeds and moving mountains? So why crumble what man says? Where is your faith in what God said?

Did someone tell you that it's easy sailing as a Christian? When you suffered what Paul suffered, then we can talk.

[smvoice]

..and I guess that means Timothy had a thorn in his stomach...pnsn, at some point you need to believe God means what He says and says what He means. That He does what He does, when He wants, and WHY He wants. He does the things He does for HIS purposes, not ours. Faith KNOWS this. And accepts it, knowing it is for HIS GLORY. EVERYTHING is for His Glory. Strengths, weaknesses, sufferings, victories, safety, in peril, rich, poor, faith remains unwavering.

[boatbums]

Okee, dokee. Nevermind. :o)

[smvoice]

WHOA..wait a minute. "When you suffered what Paul suffered, then we can talk."

What? Why, according to your beliefs, did Paul suffer? Lack of faith? Not praying hard enough, long enough, loud enough? No one to lay hands on him? From what you've been saying, Paul suffered needlessly. All he had to do is have faith that God would relieve him from his suffering. And it would have been answered.

[presently no screen name]

Yeah, yeah - some people have tried to use the fact that Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletum, to teach that healing is not for everyone. The reasoning is that if Paul left Trophimus sick instead of healing him, then that shows that God doesn't always want to heal us. After all, this was the mighty Apostle Paul, and if his associate wasn't healed then why do we think we can always be healed?

First, it is wrong to think that someone can be healed solely on the faith of another. Jesus couldn't heal all those He wanted to heal in His hometown of Nazareth Mark 6:5-6 because of their unbelief Matt 13:58, not His.

Also, it sometimes takes time to receive a healing. This verse didn't say that Trophimus stayed sick. He may have but he may have just had a little difficulty receiving his healing and Paul didn't have time to wait on the manifestation. It's possible that Trophimus was healed and caught up with Paul or ministered in some other way.

It's also possible that Trophimus just quit believing God so Paul decided to leave him there sick. There are other possibilities, but there is no reason to interpret Paul leaving Trophimus sick at Miletum, as some indication that God doesn't want us to be healed. You can, though, if it makes you feel better.

[boatbums]

Metmom: And the excuse of the afflicted person not having enough faith doesn't wash for two reasons

PNSN: Why tell me - I never said that "excuse".

PNSN(in this thread post #639):
AMEN!!! INDEED they ARE!!! But those who don't believe will never receive healings, etc.. They will get what they believed for.

If you have "never said that excuse", then what HAVE you been saying all this time?

In post #801, you said, "I was healed by my faith." So, do you believe a person's faith is what heals their sicknesses and those who are not healed do not have enough faith? This dialog started out disputing that certain people today have the gift of healing from the Holy Spirit. You seemed to be arguing FOR that position. No one is "ranting", just trying to pin down what your point really is. So far you have been as clear as mud.

[smvoice]

pnsn, you are quickly twisting yourself into a pretzel of explanations to try to explain away the clear meaning of God’s word. Very close to defending something that is indefensible. Prayerfully study God’s word of truth.

[presently no screen name]

He was imprisoned, shipwrecking, left for dead - take you pick and there is more.

All he had to do is have faith that God would relieve him from his suffering. And it would have been answered.

Suffering persecution is not sickness - surely, you know that.

[presently no screen name]

Thanks for your concern - but I believe HIM. Go have a pretzel on me.

[smvoice]

So you believe GOd will heal your sickness, with enough faith, but not your other sufferings?

[boatbums]

All he had to do is have faith that God would relieve him from his suffering. And it would have been answered. Suffering persecution is not sickness - surely, you know that.

Yet Paul DID get martyred didn't he? As did ALL the apostles, except John - though they certainly tried to do him in several times. Whatever the "affliction" Paul suffered - and many theologians believed it was an eye problem - he learned a lesson IN FAITH when God did NOT take it from him. I highly doubt this affliction was persecution as he had already experienced some and knew he had much more to suffer for the name of Christ. He would not have prayed for God to give him a cushy life free from persecution. In fact he said he knew what it was like to abound and to be abased and the lesson he learned was that in whatever state he was, therewith to be content. What kind of witness would it have been for Paul to be asking God repeatedly to take away persecution from him when people all around him were suffering it, too?

[presently no screen name]

You seemed to be arguing FOR that position

You 'seemed' wrong again!

No one is "ranting",

LOL!!!!!

just trying to pin down what your point really is. So far you have been as clear as mud.

Clear as mud to you? Well it can stay that way for you. Some more for you to sling.

[presently no screen name]

He already did and please, read the Word, as it is very clear about persecution.

[Quix]

REALLY?

I don’t know where you got that notion about folks think they can say only good things.

Oh, perhaps from a SCRIPTURE about

speaking only

whatsoever things be lovely, of good report etc.?

LOL.

The FR Religion forum !!!!TRADITION!!!!

is to throw dozens of buckets

of rocks, first, middle, last and always.

Say positive things only when absolutely forced to.

Impressive.

NOT.

[smvoice]

So...Paul's infirmity wasn't "illness". And Trophimus' healing may not have been an "immediate healing", but one that "took some time". Or Paul "didn't have time to wait on the manifestation". Or perhaps "Trophimus just quit believing God" so "Paul, (whose infirmity "wasn't illness) just decided to leave him there". Maybe to check on Timothy to see if his thorn in the stomach had gotten better...

CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE? Making up stories to "prove" your point. There was another FReeper who recently went through this. "Maybe it was this, or maybe it was that. But it CERTAINLY wasn't what God said it was. Because that doesn't match what I believe."

Deny the truth and defend the deceit. It seems to be the new craze with some.