From: kroth@david.wheaton.edu (Ken Roth)
Subject: Re: Benny Hinn, Again. (was Re: Totally bizarre Network)
Keywords: Yet again, Flame suit on...
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:51:29 GMT

In article <parsons.713824318@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>kroth@david.wheaton.edu (Ken Roth) writes:
>>Well, I am posting facts about Copeland.  They follow at the end of this post.
>[Quotes of the 'little god' and 'Ransom' atonement theology deleted.]
>
>Well, sounds like you have read CHARISMATIC CHOAS.  After skimming through
>some of the sections and reading the same quotes you quoted here, I would
>not want to be a charismatic nor associated with the charismatic movement.

Well, yes, I read Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur.  Did you read it
thoroughly, or did you allow his attacks on major charismatic figures to turn
you off to what he had to say?

>However, the author IS BIAS and writes from a non-charismatic perspective.
>My first, brief, and probably inaccurate view (I'll give him the benefit of
>the doubt until I can read the whole book) of the author is that he has
>picked out things which Copeland, Hagin and others have said or written and
>used them to fit HIS perspective of what they teach, and are not an accurate
>reflection of Word Faith teachings.  But that's what you get when you have
>a bias author.

1) Grammar flame---it is either 'Has bias' or 'is Biased'...
(Why not, I never get to do any grammar flames8-)

2) Believe me, it is obvious that he is biased.  HE even makes it terribly
clear.  Even when he mentions the precursor to this book that he wrote it is
obvious.  But remember, if you go into reading a book knowing it has a bias,
you are pretty well off.  MacArthur, while not being very nice to Hagin,
Copeland, and others, is a good author who does his research.  It is very
possible that the quotes do not represent the basic ideas behind the word of
faith teaching, but WHY in the world did they make such statements?  People in
positions of leadership do not have the luxury that we have, the right to say
something in an idle manner.  And no one should EVER put such a statement in a
book.

One of my favorite sayings is the Roman mean - 'Nothing in excess, everything
in moderation'.  This is a wonderful way to live your life, and very
scriptural (Ecel. is the image here..)  But the problem with the far end of
the charismatic movement is that they become excessive at times.  It becomes
something like the tabloid christianity like we discussed before....
"Well, YOU may have visited by two demons who told you that you were hurting
their work, but I was visited by a witch, and the Holy Spirit came to me and I
started bouncing around the house, and I bounced all the way to church,
knocking the witches and I have been bouncing ever since <boing, boing>." 
It seems that everytime something miraculous happens in the movement someone
else feels the need to one-up them.  Total sensationalism....its UGLY and
irresponsible.

Anyway, I in no way, shape, or form condemn the movement as a whole, but I
would be more inclined to agree with the 'moderates'.  My girlfriend is a
charismatic and while her church is not my cup of tea, there is no bouncing,
or eternal laughing, or chaotic prophecy, or people being healed left and
right.  But remember, you are liabel to be labeled by your excesses, not your
beliefs.  That's why Christians in general are thought of 'gay-bashers',
regardless of all the other things we may do right or wrong...


>Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
>parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

In Christ, 
Ken

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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."