From: kroth@david.wheaton.edu (Ken Roth)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Benny Hinn, Again. (was Re: Totally bizarre Network)
Keywords: Yet again, Flame suit on...
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:28:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wheaton College, IL

In article <1992Aug7.052849.5691@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.001039.4610@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>>In article <SCHOUTEN.92Aug4203116@sp17.csrd.uiuc.edu> schouten@sp17.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug4.210938.25622@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> heiser@fretz.enet.dec.com (Michael A. Heiser) writes:
>>>>             He's leading far too many Christian astray, but its their fault
>>>> for not knowing their Bible to begin with.
>>>That's a scary attitude.
>>As it should be.  It's true.  The Pastor of my church perodically spouts
>>statistics of what Americans and so-called Christians believe.  Absolutely
>>amazing, and easy to see why Benny Hinn, the Mormons, J.W.'s, Kenneth
>>Copeland, and others can get away with spouting absolute herresy, and getting
>>people to buy into it as Christianity.
>I wonder about you and your pastor as well if you don't read your "owner's 
>manual."  Please take my advice and don't get into bashing ministries 
>(especially on your pastor's word, and not your own studies) in this group.  
>I am born again today because of Jesus Christ's work through Kenneth 
>Copeland's (specifically his wife Gloria's) ministry.  I simply will not 
>let you get off unquestioned with bashing ministries in this way.  The 
>factual reporting done concerning Mike Warnke and Sandi Patti are completely 
>different than what you are doing.  >

Well, I am posting facts about Copeland.  They follow at the end of this post.
And also, it is CHEAP of you to say 'You only got this from your pastor, why
don't you study it yourself'.  Yes, we should all study issues like this, but
when you make the assumption that the poster is just sitting like a sheep,
listening to his pastor's words, believing anything he says, JUST because he
attacks your 'mentor'.  Is it not as possile that YOU are merely following
what Copeland says like a sheep, without looking at it objectively?  (I don't
necessarily believe this, but I am just turning the table to let you see what
it is like to get accused of this...)

>By the way, which of Copeland's teachings do you (perhaps the more correct 
>question would be `does your pastor') disagree with?  Perhaps the offending 
>doctrine might be something like "the Bible is the Word of God, and you 
>should live like it!"  or maybe Kenneth's sign-off phrase "Jesus is Lord!"  
>Please let us know just what it is about the Copeland's that turns you off.  
>Or better yet, find out what makes you unhappy with them, and read the Word, 
>and pray and ask God what he thinks about the issue.  You know, just maybe 
>God does want to heal believers today.  Perhaps He would prefer it if his 
>people had enough money to get His word across the earth.  But then again, 
>maybe not.

I disagree with what Copeland says because it does not come from the same
scripture I read.  His doctrine is NOT little catch phrases like the ones you
quote.  It includes the following:

Again, this is just me butting into a thread, but you asked about Copeland,
and what may be wrong with his theology.  There is a long list, and these are
all quotes from him.  I hope you can see why some of them are scripturally
incorrect, but if you want an explanation, just drop me a line...

"Well no, you don't *have* a human, do you?  You *are* one.  You don't *have*
a god in you.  You *are* one."   (*=italics)

"And I say this with all respect, so that I don't upset you too bad.  But I
say it anyway:  When I read in the Bible where He says, 'I Am,' I just smile
and say, 'Yes, I Am, too.'"  This is BLASPHEMY, nothing less.
[Both 'I Am's are capitalized in the text, and this is the translation of
YHWH, the 'name' of God.]

"He [Adam] was not a *subordinate* to God, even...[Adam] was walking as a
god...What he said, went.  What he did, counted.  [And when he] bowed his knee
to Satan, and put Satan up above him, then there wasn't anything God could do
about it, because a *god* had placed [Satan] there."

I could give a set of quotes which show how Copeland has bought into the
'Kenotic theology' that came about from liberal theology in the 19th century.
This is the belief that Christ emptied himself of all his deity during his
incarnation.  This is heretical...

There are a few other quotes that are a good deal harder to type (long and
involved).  But they show his firm belief in the Ransom theory of the
atonement, the right of any believer (especially him) to 'add' to the words of
scripture, and a basic 'anti-intellectual' view of Christianity.

Again, as I said in the last message, I love the idea of Christian diversity.
But it is imperative that the diversity be within the bounds of Scripture.
Copeland, and Hagin, and several others, have stepped WAY outsides those
bounds.  Perhaps, if you desire, we can have a E-mail conversation about some
of the problems with the excesses of the 'hyper-charismatic' movement.

>Ted


In Christ,
Ken

PS, I don't wanna make it seem like I am picking on Ted.  I did not realize
that both of my messages (the other one being about Hagin) are responses to
his.  This is not an issue about Ted, but about Hagin, Copeland, Crouch, and
others.

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
kroth@wheaton.uucp | uunet!tellab5!wheaton!kroth || They call me Gryfalia   
"We believe, we believe, 'cause we felt it burning in our hearts"--77's
"He is no fool who loses what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."