Wiki: Word of Faith forum

[probinson]

Word of Faith Forum Rules

Welcome to the Word of Faith forum! This wiki entry will contain what the forum membership has agreed upon to be "generally and specifically held Word of Faith beliefs". The position of this Word Of Faith Forum is Protestant. Anyone editing this wiki must be a qualified participant of this Word of Faith forum.

Section I will be used as the baseline for the member-elected staff to determine who may and may not debate and teach, based upon their adherence to these beliefs, and their determination to only hold a visible Word of Faith icon and no other.

Section II will explain what types of posts are acceptable in the Word of Faith forum from posters that do not hold to the beliefs in Section I, or hold a different faith icon.

Section III will list the qualifications for eligibility to vote for Word of Faith mods.

Much of the content of this wiki has been adapted from Rhema Bible Church's Tenets of Faith. (http://www.rhema.org/about/tenets_faith.cfm)

All Biblical references link to the King James Version of the Bible, provided by biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/)

Additionally, all of foru.ms general rules also apply.

Anyone, including those who do adhere to this Word of Faith Statement of Faith, whose posts continually cause strife, division, and turmoil, after repeated warnings, will have their posts deleted and will be dealt with, which will in whole or in part result in not being allowed to post in this Word of Faith forum. We have accepted the protocol found here: ET Single Forum Ban Protocol (http://foru.ms/t5965634)
__TOC__
______________________________________________________


Section I: WE BELIEVE... Concerning the Godhead, WE BELIEVEWe believe in the one, true God. Our God is manifested in three separate, distinct, eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit); these three are one (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;); 1 John 5:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus) (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).Concerning the Scriptures, WE BELIEVEAll scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished, to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy scriptures. We fully affirm that all scripture, comprised of the 66 Books of the Bible (no apocrypha) from Genesis to Revelation, is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice, and do not accept man's opinion, denominational doctrines, or any other document as equal to or above in authority to the scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17;&version=9;); 1 Thess 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20138:2;&version=9;)).Concerning Salvation, WE BELIEVEWe believe that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%203:23&version=9)). We believe that by grace we are saved through faith, salvation can not be obtained through works, and that Jesus is the only way to receive the gift of salvation (Eph 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%202:8;&version=9;);John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6;&version=9;);Acts 4:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:12;&version=9;)).We believe that unless we are born again, we will not see the Kingdom of God, and while we were yet sinners, God demonstrated His Love for us by sending us His Son, Jesus to die for our sins (John 3:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3;&version=9;); Rom 5:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%205:8;&version=9;)).We believe that when we repent, confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, that we are now justified by his blood, and shall be saved from wrath through him (Luke 13:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:5;&version=9;); Rom 10:9-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010:9-13;&version=9;); Rom 5:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%205:9;&version=9;)).We believe that Jesus' sacrifice for us is full and sufficient for our redemption and full restoration into right relationship with the Father, and when you have received the free gift of salvation, you become a new creature in Christ, old things are passed away and all things become new (Heb 7:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%207:27;&version=9;); Rom 3:21-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%203:21-22;&version=9;);2 Cor 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%205:17;&version=9;)).

The Bible teaches that without holiness no man can see the Lord. We believe in the Doctrine of Sanctification as a definite, yet progressive work of grace, commencing at the time of regeneration and continuing until the consummation of salvation at Christ's return. As Christians, we believe if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (Heb 12:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb.%2012:14&version=9); 1 Thess 5:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thes%205:23;&version=9;); 2 Peter 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:18;&version=9;); 2 Cor 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%203:18;&version=9;); Phil 3:12-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%203:12-14;&version=9;); 1 Cor 1:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%201:30;&version=9;), 1 John 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%201:9;&version=9;)).
The angels said to Jesus' disciples, "...This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." His coming is imminent. When He comes, "...The dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." Following the Tribulation, He shall return to earth as King of kings, and Lord of lords, and together with His saints, who shall be kings and priests, He shall reign a thousand years.(Acts 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:11;&version=9;); 1 Thess 4:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thes%204:16-17;&version=9;); Rev 5:10, 20:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%205:10,20:6;&version=9;)).

We believe that those that physically die without receiving Jesus Christ and His sacrifice has no further opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent.They are eternally lost in the lake of fire, which is literal, along with the devil, his demons, Hell and Death. (Matt 25:41, 46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2025:41,%2046;&version=9;); Heb 9:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%209:27;&version=9;), Rev. 20:10-14, 21:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev.%2020:10-14,%2021:6-8;&version=9;)).Concerning the Holy Spirit, WE BELIEVEThe Baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire is a gift from God as promised by the Lord Jesus Christ to all believers in this dispensation and is received separately from the new birth. This experience is accompanied by the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Holy Spirit Himself gives utterance (Matt 3:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%203:11;&version=9;); John 14:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16-17;&version=9;); Acts 1:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201:8;&version=9;); Acts 2:38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38-39;&version=9;); Acts 19:1-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:1-7;&version=9;); Acts 2:1-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:1-4;&version=9;)).

We believe there are diversities of operations of the Spirit working in every member of the Body of Christ today for the common good. These operations are the work of one and the same Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will. (1 Cor 12:8-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2012:8-11;&version=9;)).Concerning divine healing, WE BELIEVEHealing is for the total person; body, soul, and spirit and is wrought by the power of God. It is provided for in the atonement of Christ, and is the privilege of every member of the Body of Christ today who will receive by faith. (James 5:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:14-15;&version=9;); Mark 16:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:18;&version=9;); Isa 53:4-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2053:4-5;&version=9;); Matt 8:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%208:17;&version=9;); 1 Peter 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:24;&version=9;); 1 Cor 12:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2012:9;&version=9;); 1 Cor 11:24-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2011:24-30;&version=9;); Acts 19:11-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2019:11-12;&version=9;)).Concerning water baptism, WE BELIEVEWe are directly commanded by our Lord to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Baptism in water is by immersion. It is for believers only and does not save a person. Thus we do not believe that intercession on our behalf achieves either salvation or baptism, nor do we recognize infant baptism or baptism for the dead. This ordinance is a symbol of the Christian's identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Matt. 28:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2028:19;&version=9;); Rom 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%206:4;&version=9;); Rom 10:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%2010:9-10;&version=9;); Luke 13:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:3;&version=9;); Col 2:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col.%202:12;&version=9;); Acts 8:36-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:36-39;&version=9;)).Specific Word of Faith Beliefs1. We believe whatsoever a man says, not doubting in his heart, but believing that those things which he says shall come to pass, that he shall have whatsoever he says. We believe we therefore need the word of God to transform us by the renewing of our mind and speak those things in faith, that the Word of God says, in submission to God. (Mark 11:22-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011:22-26&version=9); Matt 8:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%208:8;&version=9;); Rom 10:8-10, 17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010:8-10,%2017;&version=9;); Rom 12:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2012:2;&version=9;); Prov 18:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov%2018:21;&version=9;); James 4:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%204:7;&version=9;))

2. When Jesus died on the cross, He was separated from God, for He cried "My God My God why have your forsaken me? " because he took our sins upon Himself. (Isa 53:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2053:6;&version=9;); Ps 22:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022:1;&version=9;); Matt 27:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2027:46;&version=9;); Rom 6:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%206:23;&version=9;); 2 Cor 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%205:21;&version=9;))

He was sinless, but being our substitute, He descended into hell, fully paying for our sins. (Isa 53:10-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2053:10-11;&version=9;); Ps 16:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2016:10;&version=9;); Matt 12:38-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2012:38-40;&version=9;); Matt 27:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2027:46;&version=9;); Acts 2:27, 31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:27,%2031;&version=9;); Eph 4:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%204:8-10;&version=9;); 1 John 4:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:10%20;&version=9;))

3. Jesus died Spiritually, when the Spirit of God abandoned Him while Jesus was on the cross, causing Him to cry out "My God My God why have your forsaken me?" Jesus suffered Spiritual death so we could be made free from spiritual death by becoming born-again Christians. (Rev 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%201:18;&version=9;); Matt 27:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2027:46;&version=9;); John 3:2-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:2-8;&version=9;); 1 Pet 1:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Pet%201:23;&version=9;); Isa 53:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa%2053:9;&version=9;); Acts 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:24;&version=9;); Rom 6:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%206:9;&version=9;); Ps 22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2022;&version=9;))

Jesus was the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the whole world. He was not conceived in sin, nor did He ever sin, but He was made sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. After dying Spiritually on the cross, Jesus was taken into Hell where the Father raised Him up, from death to life, to become the first born-again man ever, the first of a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people known as born-again Christians. (Matt 26:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2026:28;&version=9;); 2 Cor 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%205:21;&version=9;); 1 Pet 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Pet%202:9;&version=9;); Rev 1:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%201:5;&version=9;); John 1:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:29;&version=9;); Rev 7:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%207:14;&version=9;))

4. Every good thing comes from God and anything that kills steal, or destroys is not from God, nor is it His will. He gives abundant life. It is the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth, and the scriptures that instructs us, not negative situations. (2 Tim 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); John 16:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:13;&version=9;); Ps 145:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20145:9;&version=9;); James 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17;&version=9;); John 10:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:10;&version=9;); Matt 7:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207:11;&version=9;))

5. Prosperity is for all believers, for the whole man, spirit, soul, and body.The Lord has pleasure in the prosperity of those who serve Him. (Josh 1:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Josh%201:8;&version=9;); Ps 35:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%2035:27;&version=9;); Ps 103:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20103:3;&version=9;); Ps 122:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps%20122:7;&version=9;); Prov 10:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov%2010:22;&version=9;); Prov 28:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov%2028:20;&version=9;); John 10:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:10;&version=9;); Gal 3:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%203:13;&version=9;); 3 John 1:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%201:2;&version=9;))

6. We are new creatures made righteous with Christ's righteousness, and it is not of ourselves. We are not unworthy new creatures or sinners saved by grace. We were sinners but now we are saved by grace. (Rom 10:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010:10;&version=9;); 1 Cor 1:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%201:30;&version=9;); 2 Cor 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%205:17;&version=9;); 2 Cor 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%205:21;&version=9;); Phil 3:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%203:9;&version=9;))


Section II: DEFINITION OF FELLOWSHIP POST It is not debate.A member not adhering to the beliefs stated in Section I of this wiki may not discuss reasons for or against a subject being discussed on this forum. This includes questions that essentially are rebuttal or argumentative in nature.It is not apologetics.A member not adhering to the beliefs stated in Section I of this wiki may not engage in theological discussions that defend their particular point of view on scriptural, theological, doctrinal, Word of Faith beliefs or political issues.It is not answering questions.Let's say a thread is started that asks the question about what do you think about speaking in tongues? Only a member that adheres to the beliefs defined in Section I of this wiki can offer an opinion about that. Any member not adhering to those beliefs may not answer that question in this forum. This is not to say they don't have an opinion on that topic, but they may not answer that question here. They may not offer rebuttal to opinions posted in response to a question or discussion.It is not teaching.If a thread is started that asks a general question such as what do you think XYZ means? Only a member that adheres to the beliefs stated in Section I of this wiki may give instruction on the topic. While there may be many very good ideas on the subject from other members, they may not give instruction in the Word Of Faith Forum.Earnest questions are always welcome from anyone.Essentially Fellowship is defined as discussion of topics of association, of companionship - i.e. discussions of things like friends, family, work..... these are fellowship posts. Posts that offer friendship would certainly be described as fellowship.

Section III: QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING IN THE WORD OF FAITH FORUM The qualifications to vote in a mod election in the Word of Faith forum are as follows:



Hold and display a Word of Faith icon
Be a member of foru.ms/CF for 6 months prior to the date of the election
Have at least 350 posts
Adhere to the general and specific Word of Faith beliefs listed above in Section I of this wiki sticky.A roll of eligible voters will be maintained in the forum and will be updated by staff before every election.

[probinson]

This is the place guys and gals! Let's discuss and formulate the rules for the Word of Faith forum.

[God_Owned]

I say that we need to immediately add a section at the very beginning of the wiki which states the Rhema the following WOF Tenants of Faith.

I also recommend that these Tenants of Faith remain non-negotiable throughout the process of creating forum specific rules.

Then we can move on to specific Forum Rules. The reason for this is to make sure we don't violate Rhema's very well written Tenants of faith for WOF with some Forum specific rule.

I say this issue needs to be voted on now so we will have an established guideline from which to proceed with the establishment of the Forum specific rules.



This is a direct cut from the Rhema site and I think every bit of it should be included in the a newly created first section of WOF Beliefs/Rules.:wave:

We Believe....


THE SCRIPTURES - The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).

We Believe....

THE GODHEAD - Our God is one, but manifested in three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal (Deut. 6:4;Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16;John 15:26).

We Believe....

MAN, HIS FALL AND REDEMPTION - Man is a created being, made in the likeness and image of God, but through Adam's transgression and fall, sin came into the world. The Bible says "...all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," and "...There is none righteous, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10; 3:23). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was manifested to undo the works of the devil and gave His life and shed His blood to redeem and restore man back to God (Rom. 5:14; 1 John 3:8).

Salvation is the gift of God to man, separate from works and the Law, and is made operative by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, producing works acceptable to God (Eph. 2:8-10).

We Believe....

ETERNAL LIFE AND THE NEW BIRTH - Man's first step toward salvation is godly sorrow that worketh repentance. The New Birth is necessary to all men, and when experienced, produces eternal life (2 Cor. 7:10; John 3:3-5; 1 John 5:12).

We Believe....

WATER BAPTISM - Baptism in water is by immersion, is a direct commandment of our Lord, and is for believers only. The ordinance is a symbol of the Christian's identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; Acts 8:36-39).

The following recommendation regarding the water baptismal formula is adopted; to wit: "On the confession of your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and by His authority, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen."

We Believe....

BAPTISM IN THE HOLY GHOST - The Baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire is a gift from God as promised by the Lord Jesus Christ to all believers in this dispensation and is received subsequent to the new birth. This experience is accompanied by the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Holy Spirit Himself gives utterance (Matt. 3:11; John 14:16,17; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:38,39; Acts 19:1-7; Acts 2:1-4).

We Believe....

SANCTIFICATION - The Bible teaches that without holiness no man can see the Lord. We believe in the Doctrine of Sanctification as a definite, yet progressive work of grace, commencing at the time of regeneration and continuing until the consummation of salvation at Christ's return (Heb. 12:14; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Peter 3:18; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:12-14; 1 Cor. 1:30).

We Believe....

DIVINE HEALING - Healing is for the physical ills of the human body and is wrought by the power of God through the prayer of faith, and by the laying on of hands. It is provided for in the atonement of Christ, and is the privilege of every member of the Church today (James 5:14,15; Mark 16:18; Isa. 53:4,5; Matt. 8:17; 1 Peter 2:24).

We Believe....

RESURRECTION OF THE JUST AND THE RETURN OF OUR LORD - The angels said to Jesus' disciples, "...This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." His coming is imminent. When He comes, "...The dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16,17).

Following the Tribulation, He shall return to earth as King of kings, and Lord of lords, and together with His saints, who shall be kings and priests, He shall reign a thousand years (Rev. 5:10;20:6).

We Believe....

HELL AND ETERNAL RETRIBUTION - The one who physically dies in his sins without accepting Christ is hopelessly and eternally lost in the lake of fire and, therefore, has no further opportunity of hearing the Gospel or repenting. The lake of fire is literal. The terms "eternal" and "everlasting," used in describing the duration of the punishment of the damned in the lake of fire, carry the same thought and meaning of endless existence as used in denoting the duration of joy and ecstasy of saints in the Presence of God (Heb. 9:27; Rev. 19:20). :thumbsup:

[God_Owned]

I also recommend that we have a rule that the only marrigage that WOF recognizes is the joining of one man and one woman into one flesh.:thumbsup:

[probinson]

I have no problem with using Rhema's Tenets of faith as the baseline for our Wiki. If no one else objects, I can codify them in wiki format in place of what we currently have in the WE BELIEVE sections.

To the point about marriage, I agree we should create a section on what WE BELIEVE concerning marriage, citing scriptural references for those beliefs.

[Trish1947]

There seems to be certain words or phrases that no doubt posters will use, that do nothing but inflame. Can there be a list of these that won't be tolerated as being useful in a discussion about WOF beliefs. Such phrases as:

"Name it claim it group."
"Blab it grab it religion."
Referring to God as our "Sugar Daddy" etc.


I don't think we aught to be the "word police", but these do set things off in the wrong direction. I know of no other denomination that has to tolorate this other than WOF.
I'm sure there are other phrases people will use, maybe some others can think of some.

[probinson]

There seems to be certain words or phrases that no doubt posters will use, that do nothing but inflame. Can there be a list of these that won't be tolerated as being useful in a discussion about WOF beliefs. Such phrases as:

"Name it claim it group."
"Blab it grab it religion."
Referring to God as our "Sugar Daddy" etc.


I don't think we aught to be the "word police", but these do set things off in the wrong direction. I know of no other denomination that has to tolorate this other than WOF.
I'm sure there are other phrases people will use, maybe some others can think of some.
That's a good point. Maybe add another bullet point to the "Definition of fellowship posts", that says something like;
Phrases and words that are meant solely to demean the Word of Faith belief, including but not limited to, "Name it and claim it", "Blab it and grab it", referring to God as a "Sugar Daddy", etc., will NOT be tolerated in the Word of Faith forum.
Thoughts?

[God_Owned]

I have no problem with using Rhema's Tenets of faith as the baseline for our Wiki. If no one else objects, I can codify them in wiki format in place of what we currently have in the WE BELIEVE sections.

To the point about marriage, I agree we should create a section on what WE BELIEVE concerning marriage, citing scriptural references for those beliefs.

Sounds good to me.:wave:

[God_Owned]

There seems to be certain words or phrases that no doubt posters will use, that do nothing but inflame. Can there be a list of these that won't be tolerated as being useful in a discussion about WOF beliefs. Such phrases as:

"Name it claim it group."
"Blab it grab it religion."
Referring to God as our "Sugar Daddy" etc.


I don't think we aught to be the "word police", but these do set things off in the wrong direction. I know of no other denomination that has to tolorate this other than WOF.
I'm sure there are other phrases people will use, maybe some others can think of some.


Persaonjlly, I like these phrases. They make good points of discussion. The fact is, I do name it claim it, blab it grab it, and God is my Sugar Daddy. I wear these types of statements as a badge of honor. We need to quit getting offended, especially aouvt something that we can use to advantage us.:wave:

"Name it claim it group."
"Blab it grab it religion."
Referring to God as our "Sugar Daddy" etc.

[Trish1947]

Persaonjlly, I like these phrases. They make good points of discussion. The fact is, I do name it claim it, blab it grab it, and God is my Sugar Daddy. I wear these types of statements as a badge of honor. We need to quit getting offended, especially aouvt something that we can use to advantage us.:wave:

"Name it claim it group."
"Blab it grab it religion."
Referring to God as our "Sugar Daddy" etc.
I think it is a insult because if we don't call it that, even though the principals are true, we just don't use it. I think it shows nothing but insult and sarcasm from anyone that would state our faith in those terms. I bet some Penticostals don't like to be called "Holy Rollers" either. But hey, I can work around it. Have been in the past.. LOL.

[probinson]

I think it is a insult because if we don't call it that, even though the principals are true, we just don't use it. I think it shows nothing but insult and sarcasm from anyone that would state our faith in those terms. I bet some Penticostals don't like to be called "Holy Rollers" either. But hey, I can work around it. Have been in the past.. LOL.
I'm with you on this issue, Trish. I think the phrases only serve to foster a hostile environment for the most part.

But it is up to what the majority thinks. Speaking of which, WHERE is everybody? In order for this to work, we need more participation from the membership.

[God_Owned]

I think it is a insult because if we don't call it that, even though the principals are true, we just don't use it. I think it shows nothing but insult and sarcasm from anyone that would state our faith in those terms. I bet some Penticostals don't like to be called "Holy Rollers" either. But hey, I can work around it. Have been in the past.. LOL.

Well I guess I just dont want to get insulted today. I have heard many WOF teachers say these things and say that's OK with them. I even heard one really devout WOF couple make up a really neat song using these exact phrases and had everybody rolling in the isles. ^_^


I am a Holy Roller, a name it and clame it guy, a blab it and grag it dude, and God is my big Heavenly Sugar Dady. Yep its all true and is wonderful to me.

WOF teaches we should not become offended. Pandering to emotions is what has wrecked the WOF Forum. No matter what anyone says, someone becomes emotionally upset and reports someone for flaming. This is stupid and it is not the way WOFers should handle things. As far as I am concerned, they can 86 the flaming rule because it is absolutely abused and misused by Mods to get at people they don't like and quite frankly by women who expect men to run their lives around thier femine emotional attitudes which change from minute to minute. :wave:

I will agree with any one, I name and I claim, I blab and grab, I holy roll with the best of them and God is Sugar Daddy full of that sweet Holy Ghost love in Christ Jesus.


I refuse to build rules around emotional attitudes. :tutu:

[rmw8855]

Persaonjlly, I like these phrases. They make good points of discussion. The fact is, I do name it claim it, blab it grab it, and God is my Sugar Daddy. I wear these types of statements as a badge of honor. We need to quit getting offended, especially aouvt something that we can use to advantage us.:wave: .

I think it is a insult because if we don't call it that, even though the principals are true, we just don't use it. I think it shows nothing but insult and sarcasm from anyone that would state our faith in those terms. I bet some Penticostals don't like to be called "Holy Rollers" either. But hey, I can work around it. Have been in the past.. LOL.

I can see both sides of this. It doesn't bother me that people call me those things, like God_owned I consider it a compliment. Hyper Faith and extremist are some others. But if it is going to bother others, add the limitation. Why allow something that could trigger an argument. I like probinson's wording.

[rmw8855]

[
WOF teaches we should not become offended. Pandering to emotions is what has wrecked the WOF Forum. No matter what anyone says, someone becomes emotionally upset and reports someone for flaming. This is stupid and it is not the way WOFers should handle things. As far as I am concerned, they can 86 the flaming rule because it is absolutely abused and misused by Mods to get at people they don't like and quite frankly by women who expect men to run their lives around thier femine emotional attitudes which change from minute to minute. :wave:


I refuse to build rules around emotional attitudes. :tutu:

I agree with most of what your saying God_owned, but lets leave stereotypes out of the discussion. I am considered very logical and rarely let my emotions rule. Anyone is capable of being ruled by their emotions.

We are not to become offended because it interferes in our ability to receive from God. However, I stopped participating in alot of the discussions not because I became offended but because I refuse to fight with people. Most of the time, they are looking for a fight and there is nothing you can do to change their mind. I love a good debate, but I won't participate once the attacks become personal. If this type of flaming isn't stopped people just leave, which defeats the whole point of a discussion.

On the other hand, the flaming rule can not be used just to get back at people we disagree with. If we walk in love, according to the word and build enough checks & balances into the system, then we can prevent that from happening in the future. Especially if we control who are the mods on our forum.:)

[TheGloryisHere]

I also recommend that we have a rule that the only marrigage that WOF recognizes is the joining of one man and one woman into one flesh.:thumbsup:
good idea.

[TheGloryisHere]

I have no problem with using Rhema's Tenets of faith as the baseline for our Wiki. If no one else objects, I can codify them in wiki format in place of what we currently have in the WE BELIEVE sections.

To the point about marriage, I agree we should create a section on what WE BELIEVE concerning marriage, citing scriptural references for those beliefs.
I have no problem with using them either.

[TheGloryisHere]

There seems to be certain words or phrases that no doubt posters will use, that do nothing but inflame. Can there be a list of these that won't be tolerated as being useful in a discussion about WOF beliefs. Such phrases as:

"Name it claim it group."
"Blab it grab it religion."
Referring to God as our "Sugar Daddy" etc.


I don't think we aught to be the "word police", but these do set things off in the wrong direction. I know of no other denomination that has to tolorate this other than WOF.
I'm sure there are other phrases people will use, maybe some others can think of some.
sounds good to me. Flaming shouldn't be allowed by those who don't believe like us. They can come in, but it shouldn't be just to come flame us.

[probinson]

Well, before we get to discussing too many topics at once, let's return to the first topic, using the Rhema Tenets of Faith in our Wiki.

I'm cool with that, as everyone else seems to be also. So, if by the end of the day tomorrow (7/12, 5:00 PM EDT) no one has voiced any concern with this, then I will format the Rhema Tenets of Faith into our Wiki, replacing what is currently there in the "We Believe" sections.

[J4Jesus]

God_Owned did you copy/ paste that exactly from Rhema or add or take away anything? Just curious :)

[J4Jesus]

I also recommend that we have a rule that the only marrigage that WOF recognizes is the joining of one man and one woman into one flesh.:thumbsup:


Edit:

Yes. But maybe word it alittle different. There are some here in our forum and the main forum who say they are married even if they never got married. They say its just making a commitment to each other and coming together in the flesh and that's your husband or wife with no need for a marriage licences, ceremony or a preacher or JP. I have argued that for about 6 months now. :( Word of Faith does not believe that and most Spiritfilled churches don't, No matter what icon they have been using promoting that kind of lifestyle it's not scriptural and is against our teachings.

[J4Jesus]

Well, before we get to discussing too many topics at once, let's return to the first topic, using the Rhema Tenets of Faith in our Wiki.

I'm cool with that, as everyone else seems to be also. So, if by the end of the day tomorrow (7/12, 5:00 PM EDT) no one has voiced any concern with this, then I will format the Rhema Tenets of Faith into our Wiki, replacing what is currently there in the "We Believe" sections.


I couldnt even find our statement and I didnt even know this til very late last night. we havent even got to talk about it and it gone or hidden again. This is going to fast and who has decide all this already, two ro three?

I dont think we should do away with our statement though. Some of it clarifed some things we have had to aruge about for quite some time now . And it would be there in black and white. Maybe add it or on that particual part that applies write (continued) and put a link on another section with more details

[God_Owned]

I can see both sides of this. It doesn't bother me that people call me those things, like God_owned I consider it a compliment. Hyper Faith and extremist are some others. But if it is going to bother others, add the limitation. Why allow something that could trigger an argument. I like probinson's wording.

Why don't we act like what we say we are and be WOFers who operate in the love of God which does not take offece. We need to set an example instead of being just another bunch of cry baby Christians. This is why I welcome being called a name it and claim it, blab it an grab it, etc.:wave:

[God_Owned]

Well, before we get to discussing too many topics at once, let's return to the first topic, using the Rhema Tenets of Faith in our Wiki.

I'm cool with that, as everyone else seems to be also. So, if by the end of the day tomorrow (7/12, 5:00 PM EDT) no one has voiced any concern with this, then I will format the Rhema Tenets of Faith into our Wiki, replacing what is currently there in the "We Believe" sections.

Drive on Bro..:thumbsup:

[God_Owned]

God_Owned did you copy/ paste that exactly from Rhema or add or take away anything? Just curious :)


I said it is an exact copy and so it is. Let it be said, let it be done. lol

[God_Owned]

Edit:

Yes. But maybe word it alittle different. There are some here in our forum and the main forum who say they are married even if they never got married. They say its just making a commitment to each other and coming together in the flesh and that's your husband or wife with no need for a marriage licences, ceremony or a preacher or JP. I have argued that for about 6 months now. :( Word of Faith does not believe that and most Spiritfilled churches don't, No matter what icon they have been using promoting that kind of lifestyle it's not scriptural and is against our teachings.\

I missed your point. Exactly what is wrong with my wording of my proposed rule?

[God_Owned]

I couldnt even find our statement and I didnt even know this til very late last night. we havent even got to talk about it and it gone or hidden again. This is going to fast and who has decide all this already, two ro three?

I dont think we should do away with our statement though. Some of it clarifed some things we have had to aruge about for quite some time now . And it would be there in black and white. Maybe add it or on that particual part that applies write (continued) and put a link on another section with more details

Clarifying things doesn't prevent us from going ahead with Hagin's Tenants of Faith. It seemed to serve him and millions of others well and I expect it will work four our little band of the faithful as well.

[J4Jesus]

I have no problem with using Rhema's Tenets of faith as the baseline for our Wiki. If no one else objects, I can codify them in wiki format in place of what we currently have in the WE BELIEVE sections.

To the point about marriage, I agree we should create a section on what WE BELIEVE concerning marriage, citing scriptural references for those beliefs.

Right ! :thumbsup: And include the verses concerning fornication and adultery for clarification. That's what it is if they did not get married. But some don't beleive that.


I think it is a insult because if we don't call it that, even though the principals are true, we just don't use it. I think it shows nothing but insult and sarcasm from anyone that would state our faith in those terms. I bet some Penticostals don't like to be called "Holy Rollers" either. But hey, I can work around it. Have been in the past.. LOL.

I'm with you on this issue, Trish. I think the phrases only serve to foster a hostile environment for the most part.

But it is up to what the majority thinks. Speaking of which, WHERE is everybody? In order for this to work, we need more participation from the membership.

I think they are insulting us too saying those things, so yes I like how you said that,its their attitude.

[Altho I personally do confess ( the promises) and possess (them) - Name it (the promise) and Claim it ]


Pete people dont even know this is going. Most don't read announcements. They come on now and then and go to their favorite threads or answer PM. SOme dont even konw the lastest detail on this andtheywe are do be doing this or it wouldbe chaos. They think its great we wont have alot of rules andodo what we want. Its to be gradual so they are just waiting for more detail on what he changes I guess. Then those of the other left :(

[J4Jesus]

\

I missed your point. Exactly what is wrong with my wording of my proposed rule?
Please my read post again carefully. I understand and know you meant it in the right way. :) But the way its stated they could take it wrong. Like in my post, it sounds just like what they are doing, living in fornication, which they will not admit. They think if a man and woman come together in the flesh they are married. Its needs more clarification than that. Thats what we DONT want to imply. Thats what one of the new rules say , 'if they say they are married they are.' But we can have it different here in our forum even tho its not that way on the forum in general..


Clarifying things doesn't prevent us from going ahead with Hagin's Tenants of Faith. It seemed to serve him and millions of others well and I expect it will work four our little band of the faithful as well.

Yes true those are good and right. .BUT as some have already told us when they inguire,that is what almost all full gospel, charismatic, Spiritfilled people believe and say they dont see any difference in us. There is a difference and more details with some of our statements of beliefs that are not mentioned in theirs could be incorporated. Otherwise everyone will read that and say yes they are WOF. You and I konw that 's not so.
Now do you see what I am saying? :)

[God_Owned]

Please my read post again carefully. I understand and know you meant in the right way. :) But the way its stated they could take it wrong. Like in my post, it sounds just like what they are doing, living in infornication, which they willnot admit.. They think if a man and woman come together in the flesh they are married. Its needs more clarification than that.

Fine, as long as itis clear that marriage = one man + one woman + a marriage licence and joined by God is included.

If it were left to me, I would incle the words:

Adam made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! ...no joke.


Yes true those are good and right. .BUT as some have already told us when they inguire,that is what almost all full gospel, charismatic, Spiritfilled people believe and say they dont see any difference in us. There is a difference and more details with some of our statements of beliefs that are not mentioned in theirs could be incorporated. Otherwise everyone will read that and say yes they are WOF. You and I konw that 's not so.
Now do you see what I am saying?


You can add all the qualifiers you want, but that in no way prevents us from posting the tenants of faith as written by Hagin. If ewe can't agree on this, then we have little left to agree on.

...and I don't run my life around what other say or think. ...do you? :D

[J4Jesus]

Fine, as long as itis clear that marriage = one man + one woman + a marriage licence and joined by God is included.

If it were left to me, I would incle the words:

Adam made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! ...no joke.

LOL:D

You can add all the qualifiers you want, but that in no way prevents us from posting the tenants of faith as written by Hagin. If ewe can't agree on this, then we have little left to agree on.

...and I don't run my life around what other say or think. ...do you? :D
As I said before, YES that is good go for it.:) but just dont do away with all ours and add some so they will fully understand the differences.
OK got it? ;)

[God_Owned]

As I said before, YES that is good go for it.:) but just dont do away with all ours and add some so they will fully understand the differences.
OK got it? ;)

The question is, do you got it? ^_^

[J4Jesus]

I would like to suggest a rule. But you probably wont like it ;) ^_^ But we can all vote on it and work something out .

I like it when its PEACEFUL! So I'd rather there not be debates in the whole forum.

I know you love it! :D But why not have the debaters go to the debate area we already have if thats what they like? Everyone doesn't.

OR maybe we could have one section , maybe at the top that says DEBATE and it would only be there,

OR vise versa- a NON DEBATE area.

OR we specify on the title of a thread NO DEBATE. or DEBATE if we want and it's ENFORCED. I'd like some way to do this because theres almost no place to go without all the arguing , strife. and debating. And it will be worse since now all the unbeleivers could come swarming in at once to the congregations. There is going to be NO Christian only sections now. Unless we are allowed to make one here .

[probinson]

I couldnt even find our statement and I didnt even know this til very late last night. we havent even got to talk about it and it gone or hidden again. This is going to fast and who has decide all this already, two ro three?
As much as I value everyone's opinion, they have to actually be here to be heard. All of the Word of Faith poster's views will be considered. They just need to come here so we can hear them. I've linked to this in at least 5 different places. But perhaps start a thread that has a title "come discuss the rules!" or some such thing. Also, please feel free to PM or otherwise contact people to get them in here.

The fact is, the new CF is in full swing and we need to get moving on the creation and implementation of our wiki. I would LOVE to see more participation from the membership.

I dont think we should do away with our statement though. Some of it clarifed some things we have had to aruge about for quite some time now . And it would be there in black and white. Maybe add it or on that particual part that applies write (continued) and put a link on another section with more details
Fair enough. We could do something like that if we see a need for it. So instead of "removing" (when you "remove" something from a wiki, it's not really gone) our statement, I'll just codify the Rhema one, and leave our statement alone, for now.

I think the Rhema statement will be a great baseline, but there's nothing to say we can't tweak, clarify, or add to it if the membership sees the need.

[probinson]

Pete people dont even know this is going. Most don't read announcements. They come on now and then and go to their favorite threads or answer PM. SOme dont even konw the lastest detail on this andtheywe are do be doing this or it wouldbe chaos. They think its great we wont have alot of rules andodo what we want. Its to be gradual so they are just waiting for more detail on what he changes I guess. Then those of the other left :(
Again, please tell the people you talk with and let them know this is happening, and tell them to get involved. This is happening NOW, regardless of who shows up to have their voice heard.

I'm the type of guy that likes to get things DONE. I think it is reasonable to have between 3-5 days discussion on each topic that arises, allowing for everyone to have their input, before coming to a decision, and moving on to the next item. That should give anyone who will be visiting CF on a regular basis ample time to respond and have their voice be heard. Anything beyond that, and the process will get bogged down. We need to keep this thing moving, so that we accomplish what we set out to do.

I can't say it enough. Let people know that you think would want to be involved.

[rmw8855]

I would like to suggest a rule. But you probably wont like it ;) ^_^ But we can all vote on it and work something out .

I like it when its PEACEFUL! So I'd rather there not be debates in the whole forum.

I know you love it! :D But why not have the debaters go to the debate area we already have if thats what they like? Everyone doesn't.

OR maybe we could have one section , maybe at the top that says DEBATE and it would only be there,

OR vise versa- a NON DEBATE area.

OR we specify on the title of a thread NO DEBATE. or DEBATE if we want and it's ENFORCED. I'd like some way to do this because theres almost no place to go without all the arguing , strife. and debating. And it will be worse since now all the unbeleivers could come swarming in at once to the congregations. There is going to be NO Christian only sections now. Unless we are allowed to make one here .

I agree with this completely. I would like a place where I can meet with likeminded WOF people without having to defend my beliefs constantly.

[probinson]

I agree with this completely. I would like a place where I can meet with likeminded WOF people without having to defend my beliefs constantly.
I suggested something similar to this for the main SF/PC forum.

My suggestion was a [NO-DEBATE] tag, that if the person starting the OP did not want debate, they could preface their thread title with this tag.

That way, all threads would be open for debate by default, but if a poster did not want debate, they could use the tag.

If someone wanted to debate the topic in that thread, then they would be free to start their own thread where they could do so.

[TheGloryisHere]

I would like to suggest a rule. But you probably wont like it ;) ^_^ But we can all vote on it and work something out .

I like it when its PEACEFUL! So I'd rather there not be debates in the whole forum.

I know you love it! :D But why not have the debaters go to the debate area we already have if thats what they like? Everyone doesn't.

OR maybe we could have one section , maybe at the top that says DEBATE and it would only be there,

OR vise versa- a NON DEBATE area.

OR we specify on the title of a thread NO DEBATE. or DEBATE if we want and it's ENFORCED. I'd like some way to do this because theres almost no place to go without all the arguing , strife. and debating. And it will be worse since now all the unbeleivers could come swarming in at once to the congregations. There is going to be NO Christian only sections now. Unless we are allowed to make one here .
soo, that would be J and David...

Why don't we have Pete just put the whole kitchen sink in it too??

[TheGloryisHere]

I suggested something similar to this for the main SF/PC forum.

My suggestion was a [NO-DEBATE] tag, that if the person starting the OP did not want debate, they could preface their thread title with this tag.

That way, all threads would be open for debate by default, but if a poster did not want debate, they could use the tag.

If someone wanted to debate the topic in that thread, then they would be free to start their own thread where they could do so.
I think using tags is a good idea in the op.

[God_Owned]

I would like to suggest a rule. But you probably wont like it ;) ^_^ But we can all vote on it and work something out .

I like it when its PEACEFUL! So I'd rather there not be debates in the whole forum.

I know you love it! :D But why not have the debaters go to the debate area we already have if thats what they like? Everyone doesn't.

OR maybe we could have one section , maybe at the top that says DEBATE and it would only be there,

OR vise versa- a NON DEBATE area.

OR we specify on the title of a thread NO DEBATE. or DEBATE if we want and it's ENFORCED. I'd like some way to do this because theres almost no place to go without all the arguing , strife. and debating. And it will be worse since now all the unbeleivers could come swarming in at once to the congregations. There is going to be NO Christian only sections now. Unless we are allowed to make one here .

You are right I don't like it. It is an emotionally driven famine rule and should never be adopted. Who is to say what is a debate, you? You call most discussions debates. Debating is scriptural. Jesus did it and Paul did but you have decided that we aren't to do it. http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[God_Owned]

As much as I value everyone's opinion, they have to actually be here to be heard. All of the Word of Faith poster's views will be considered. They just need to come here so we can hear them. I've linked to this in at least 5 different places. But perhaps start a thread that has a title "come discuss the rules!" or some such thing. Also, please feel free to PM or otherwise contact people to get them in here.

The fact is, the new CF is in full swing and we need to get moving on the creation and implementation of our wiki. I would LOVE to see more participation from the membership.

Fair enough. We could do something like that if we see a need for it. So instead of "removing" (when you "remove" something from a wiki, it's not really gone) our statement, I'll just codify the Rhema one, and leave our statement alone, for now.

I think the Rhema statement will be a great baseline, but there's nothing to say we can't tweak, clarify, or add to it if the membership sees the need.

I say put the Rhema statement of faith in as writen. Ass any clairification somewhere else in the rules/beliefs.

[probinson]

You are right I don't like it. It is an emotionally driven famine rule and should never be adopted. Who is to say what is a debate, you? You call most discussions debates. Debating is scriptural. Jesus did it and Paul did but you have decided that we aren't to do it. http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif
No one is saying you can't debate, nor that debate isn't good. Just that some people would prefer to have the ability to decide for themselves when they are the one starting the thread if they want to debate a topic, or if they're looking for like-minded fellowship. There is a place for both.

And if you want to debate the topic that has the [NO-DEBATE] tag, you would be free to start another thread, and anyone wishing to join the debate could participate in your thread, while anyone not looking for debate could participate in the other.

But your disapproval of the suggestion is duly noted.

[God_Owned]

I agree with this completely. I would like a place where I can meet with likeminded WOF people without having to defend my beliefs constantly.

She isn't talking about defending your beliefs. She is includes in her no debate thinking the banning of even two people discussing their differences of opinion about WOF beliefs. She calls this arguing and strife which it's not. She has an unscriptural view of what she calls debate and it should not be included in the Forum rules. ...of course I don't expect that the masculine view of scripture will be well represented here.
:wave:

[J4Jesus]

I suggested something similar to this for the main SF/PC forum.

My suggestion was a [NO-DEBATE] tag, that if the person starting the OP did not want debate, they could preface their thread title with this tag.

That way, all threads would be open for debate by default, but if a poster did not want debate, they could use the tag.

If someone wanted to debate the topic in that thread, then they would be free to start their own thread where they could do so.

We could try that.:) If it didn' work out then try something else.
But most of my titles would be NO DEBATE. One thing about that there may be ALOT of them and the titles only partially show they are so short so you have to click on them to see the subject instead of just look down the list. Thats why I gave more suggestions.



As much as I value everyone's opinion, they have to actually be here to be heard. All of the Word of Faith poster's views will be considered. They just need to come here so we can hear them. I've linked to this in at least 5 different places. But perhaps start a thread that has a title "come discuss the rules!" or some such thing. Also, please feel free to PM or otherwise contact people to get them in here.

The fact is, the new CF is in full swing and we need to get moving on the creation and implementation of our wiki. I would LOVE to see more participation from the membership.

Fair enough. We could do something like that if we see a need for it. So instead of "removing" (when you "remove" something from a wiki, it's not really gone) our statement, I'll just codify the Rhema one, and leave our statement alone, for now.

I think the Rhema statement will be a great baseline, but there's nothing to say we can't tweak, clarify, or add to it if the membership sees the need.

I have been telling others (PM).But most are gone or changed there icon to something different. I think those who are Word of Faith should be the ones to discuss and decide rules. Why have someone with other beliefs else tell us what ruled to have.?

What Rhema has is good, that fines. What I meant was also put ours somewhere plainly in sight NOT HIDDEN like before. Because they read the main beliefs and say almost all Spiritfilled people believe that and then they would think they are Word of Faith beleivers.Thats not true, there are differences and could cause more of the same problems like before.

I also think there should be some sort of statement about those who want to be a part of our forum that they actually do BELIEVE, ADHERE TO what is in our statement of faith.

That does not mean they can't come fellowship and be involves in what we are talking about, as long as they are not speaking against what we believe. I mean that they can't say they are Word of Faith believers but not belief what we believe. We have been thru all that long enough here.

Like you said if they dont believe what is on that thread make their own.

Most do want to argue and debate all the time. We just want to talk about Jesus and the Word of God and the good things of the Lord.

[probinson]

We could try that.:) If it didn' work out then try something else.
But most of my titles would be NO DEBATE. One thing about that there may be alot of them and the titles only partiallt show they are so short soyohaveot clickon them to see the subject instead of just look down the list. Thats why I gave more suggestions.
Gotcha. But if the standard was to put [NO-DEBATE] at the very beginning of the thread title, it would be clear to those wishing to debate the topic that they needed to start their own thread.

Personally, I like debate, and debating is how I learn best. So I would shy away from any type of a theological thread that had a [NO-DEBATE] tag, but I understand your desire to be able to have threads without what some would view as constant bickering.

I have been telling others (PM).But most are gone or changed there icon to something different. I think those who are Word of Faith should be the ones to discuss and decide rules. Why have someone with other beliefs else tell us what ruled to have.?
While I am disheartened that some have decided to leave, I do respect their decision to do so. At the same time, we must move forward. They must do what they believe is right, as should we. I wish we could get more people to participate, but it is solely their decision.

As far as I am aware, those that are Word of Faith are the only ones that will be deciding on the final wiki, and no one has suggested otherwise.

What Rhema has is good, that fines. What I meant was also put ours somewhere plainly in sight NOT HIDDEN like before. Because they read the main beliefs and say almost all Spiritfilled people believe that and then they would think they are Word of Faith beleivers.Thats not true and could cause more prolbems like before.
I see your point. That's why I said we should feel free to clarify, tweak, or modify the things that we feel are necessary.

The Rhema tenets of faith are excellent foundation. I know many Word of Faith churches that START with those tenets as their baseline. But nearly all will adjust them in some way, my Rhema-affiliated church included, not because there is anything wrong with them, but because one church may have a greater emphasis on something, or whatever reason. So if we start with the Rhema belief concerning, say, salvation, we should then feel free to clarify further any points that we deem necessary to identify with Word of Faith here at CF.

I also I think there should be some sort of statement about those who want to be a part of our forum that the actually do BELIEVE, ADHERE TO what is in our stament of faith.
The wiki currently says this as the very first statement;This wiki entry will contain what the forum membership has agreed upon to be "generally held Word of Faith beliefs". This will be used as the baseline for the member-elected staff to determine who may and may not debate, based upon their adherence to these beliefs.

[J4Jesus]

Pete
Read my last post
I forgot to correct and edited some of it too not knowing you were posting

[J4Jesus]

Gotcha. But if the standard was to put [NO-DEBATE] at the very beginning of the thread title, it would be clear to those wishing to debate the topic that they needed to start their own thread.

Personally, I like debate, and debating is how I learn best. So I would shy away from any type of a theological thread that had a [NO-DEBATE] tag, but I understand your desire to be able to have threads without what some would view as constant bickering.

While I am disheartened that some have decided to leave, I do respect their decision to do so. At the same time, we must move forward. They must do what they believe is right, as should we. I wish we could get more people to participate, but it is solely their decision.

As far as I am aware, those that are Word of Faith are the only ones that will be deciding on the final wiki, and no one has suggested otherwise.

I see your point. That's why I said we should feel free to clarify, tweak, or modify the things that we feel are necessary.

The Rhema tenets of faith are excellent foundation. I know many Word of Faith churches that START with those tenets as their baseline. But nearly all will adjust them in some way, my Rhema-affiliated church included, not because there is anything wrong with them, but because one church may have a greater emphasis on something, or whatever reason. So if we start with the Rhema belief concerning, say, salvation, we should then feel free to clarify further any points that we deem necessary to identify with Word of Faith here at CF.


The wiki currently says this as the very first statement;This wiki entry will contain what the forum membership has agreed upon to be "generally held Word of Faith beliefs". This will be used as the baseline for the member-elected staff to determine who may and may not debate, based upon their adherence to these beliefs.


Ok . I mostly agree ;) :)

[J4Jesus]

You are right I don't like it. It is an emotionally driven famine rule and should never be adopted. Who is to say what is a debate, you? You call most discussions debates. Debating is scriptural. Jesus did it and Paul did but you have decided that we aren't to do it. http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Hey God-Owned.

No that 's not what I'm saying. :) I did not decide you're not to. I didn't say no one can debate, read how I gave suggestion as to how or where TO DEBATE . A rational discussion of things and right attitudes doing it is fine but most on here are just in the flesh calling names, putting others down, hot headed arguments, derailing threads, bickering, full of strife. There are many verses where we are told not to do that. Jesus and Paul were not in the flesh when they expounded on the gospel.

There are those who want to learn and will listen. But 90% here do not and will not, and are just fighting about it. This does not help promote the gospel but hinders it.
Everyone is not a debater. Some are called to teach or encourage , or other callings and that atmosphere is just not conducive.

She isn't talking about defending your beliefs. She is includes in her no debate thinking the banning of even two people discussing their differences of opinion about WOF beliefs. She calls this arguing and strife which it's not. She has an unscriptural view of what she calls debate and it should not be included in the Forum rules. ...of course I don't expect that the masculine view of scripture will be well represented here.


I don't think you're in my head to know what I am thinking ;) And thats not true. How in the world did you get that out of what I said? ^_^ Banning someone never entered my head!

I am partly talking about defending our beliefs but also what I have stated above.
But when we am having a great time talking about the word and the Lord I don't like someone coming in derailing the thread and causing a disturbance.

This has nothing to do with gender. All males do not want to debate all the time. That's a matter of personal likes and dislikes and also callings. :)

I can think of 5 guys here right off the top of my head who don't engage in that. They prefer to help edify the Body in ways that promotes a closer fellowship with each other and the Lord. Now when I can no longer do this or share the gospel without all kind of interruption, interference and strife , then I guess this is not the place for me.I ts not the right setting for my calling

[probinson]

OK, as discussed earlier, Section 1 of the wiki has now been updated with the Rhema tenets of faith as a baseline. The tenets have been copied in their entirety directly from the Rhema web site (link provided at the top of the wiki). The only modifications were to formatting, structure and layout, as well as links added to each scriptural reference. Other than that, the content remains unchanged.

I would now propse that one by one, we discuss each point to see if there are any modifications, additions, clarifications or otherwise that we would like to see in the wiki.

I would propose leaving each point open for discussion for 3-5 days before moving on to the next point.


So, here is the first point for discussion;Concerning the Godhead, WE BELIEVE

Our God is one, but manifested in three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).
Additions? Changes? Clarifications?

Let's hear 'em!

[pdudgeon]

it looks like i missed the first part of the Rhema tenents. if it's not too late i'd like for the following to be considered. (additions in bold)
THE SCRIPTURES - The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our only infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21). No other revelationary or doctrinal writing by men, no traditions, nor personal experiences should supplant the Word of God, nor be held equal to it.


We Believe....

THE GODHEAD - Our God is one, but manifested in three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal (Deut. 6:4;Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16;John 15:26).




in the first part i think we need to not only put in what we believe, but also what sets us apart from other religions and doctrines.

[J4Jesus]

What do you think about maybe inserting the words

"three separate Persons"

or
" three distinct Persons"

or
"... three separate and distinct Persons...".,

as to not confuse with the Oneness doctrine. Some have told me they believe there is one God, manifested as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and it appears they would believe the same. Yet unless you ask them for a detailed explaination of that, you won't know, to their way of thinking that really means the ONE God is the Person of JESUS, who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who functions in all those capacities...

Before it didn't matter as much because of the rules were they were not allowed to have a Christian icon and the Oneness icon was in the non Christian category. Now there are no restrictions on icons if I understand correctly.

[probinson]

it looks like i missed the first part of the Rhema tenents. if it's not too late i'd like for the following to be considered. (additions in bold)
It's never too late!

Those look like good additions to me.

in the first part i think we need to not only put in what we believe, but also what sets us apart from other religions and doctrines.
That also sounds good to me. Or maybe make the what sets us apart as section 2, and the definition of fellowship post as section 3.

In any event, I think we should work through what's there first, and then consider any additional sections after that.

[probinson]

What do you think about maybe inserting the words

"three separate Persons"

or
" three distinct Persons"

or
"... three separate and distinct Persons...".,


So you would propose to see it as;Our God is one, but manifested in three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal...
I see no problem with that.

[J4Jesus]

So you would propose to see it as;Our God is one, but manifested in three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal...I see no problem with that.

I really don't know the best way to word things. But just to make the distinction some how of our beliefs from theirs. Then their would be no confusion about it.

EDIT
That sounds OK to me. See what the others think

[J4Jesus]

in the first part i think we need to not only put in what we believe, but also what sets us apart from other religions and doctrines.

That also sounds good to me. Or maybe make the what sets us apart as section 2, and the definition of fellowship post as section 3.

:amen:

[God_Owned]

Gotcha. But if the standard was to put [NO-DEBATE] at the very beginning of the thread title, it would be clear to those wishing to debate the topic that they needed to start their own thread.

The No Debate tag needs to be on every post in the thread or people coming on a long thread won't readily recognize it as a no debate thread.

While I am disheartened that some have decided to leave, I do respect their decision to do so. At the same time, we must move forward. They must do what they believe is right, as should we. I wish we could get more people to participate, but it is solely their decision.

It may be this wiki business that is keeping osme away. It messes with my computer which is why I am responding in this way. Every time I make a post it kick me back to the main wiki thread from which I have to go to "discussion" which takes as much a 4 minutes to come up. ...and it isn't my computer. Everything else is working fine.

..or it may be that many left because of the Mods allowing peole like Rick to do as he pleases while punishing WOFers. ...all Mos need to be WOF. This should be a rule. Can it be made a rule?

I can think of 5 guys here right off the top of my head who don't engage in that. They prefer to help edify the Body in ways that promotes a closer fellowship with each other and the Lord. Now when I can no longer do this or share the gospel without all kind of interruption, interference and strife , then I guess this is not the place for me.I ts not the right setting for my calling

On this you and I disagree and always will because your view on debate is not scriptural and therefore I won't consider it. ...but it does interfere in the learning process. Your un-scriptural judgment of those who engage in debate is a source of strife or are not edifying the body is a source of strife because you are imposing an un-scriptural underhanded emotionally driven accusations on others. I hope that you will soon rightlly divide the Word about debate.

I am interested in setting up a set of rules which will enable WOFers to have honest word based conversation/debates, etc without being accused of flaming. Also rules which allow for masculine and feminine humor. IMHO, many women, and some men, in the WOF forum have unjustly accused many of flaming because they simply had their emotions ruffled. This is wrong and this flaming thing needs to be reeled in so it an't be used as a weapon. It needs to be addressed in the rules.

The following souns good to me.

THE SCRIPTURES - The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our only infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21). No other revelationary or doctrinal writing by men, no traditions, nor personal experiences should supplant the Word of God, nor be held equal to it.


I have no problem with inserting comforter, but I but I do have another suggestion concerning the following quote which I explain further down.
We Believe....

THE GODHEAD - Our God is one, but manifested in three Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal (Deut. 6:4;Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16;John 15:26). "

I strongly recommend you take out the word "but" in the following statement because it effectly means that all that went before the "but"is null and void, which is not true.

"Our God is one, but (delete "but") manifested in three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being coequal..."

I will go with the three distinct person thing if you write it like this. Also, please use Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit.

Our God is one, manifested in three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being coequal...:wave:

[TasManOfGod]

Thanks for the invite here pr
As you know my concern primarily relates to the autonomy of a WoF forum which would be necessary under the new regime if the integrity of WoF teaching is to be maintained.

[God_Owned]

Thanks for the invite here pr
As you know my concern primarily relates to the autonomy of a WoF forum which would be necessary under the new regime if the integrity of WoF teaching is to be maintained.

I agree, WOFers need to be able to act like WOFers here in the WOF Forum.:wave:

[Dave01]

Looks like it is starting to come together :thumbsup:

[TasManOfGod]

What is the assurance that only WoF staff will mod the Wof forum?

[probinson]

The No Debate tag needs to be on every post in the thread or people coming on a long thread won't readily recognize it as a no debate thread.
If the No Debate tag were implemented in the wau I suggested, it would go in the thread title, which would make it visible on the forum page. It would be the very first thing you saw, before you ever clicked the thread link.

It may be this wiki business that is keeping osme away. It messes with my computer which is why I am responding in this way. Every time I make a post it kick me back to the main wiki thread from which I have to go to "discussion" which takes as much a 4 minutes to come up. ...and it isn't my computer. Everything else is working fine.
That's odd. But I don't think it's a problem with CF or the wiki. I'm not experiencing anything like that.

I strongly recommend you take out the word "but" in the following statement because it effectly means that all that went before the "but"is null and void, which is not true.
Hmmm. Not sure about that. That is the way the Rhema Tenets of Faith have been written, verbatim, for years;

http://www.rhema.org/about/tenets_faith.cfm

I don't think the 'but' nullifes what comes before it.

It is essentially saying that God is ONE being, but manifested in THREE persons.

I will go with the three distinct person thing if you write it like this. Also, please use Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit.

Our God is one, manifested in three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, being coequal...:wave:
Again, not sure why we would need to change "Spirit" to "Ghost". Could you please explain further why you feel that is necessary?

[probinson]

I agree, WOFers need to be able to act like WOFers here in the WOF Forum.:wave:

Thanks for the invite here pr
As you know my concern primarily relates to the autonomy of a WoF forum which would be necessary under the new regime if the integrity of WoF teaching is to be maintained.
Let me try to explain again why the need for WoF mods exclusively is not necessary under the new CF.

YOU are the governing body, not the mods. YOU make the rules. Only WoF people will make these rules.

Whoever happens to be on staff will be obligated to enforce whatever rules are in place. Not only that, but you will vote on the staff, so YOU will have placed them there.

YOU are in control. The staff does not have near the 'power' that they had under the old CF.

But if it makes you feel any better, I have been invited to re-join staff for the transition from now until the end of the year. Being as I feel the new CF satisfactorily addresses the issues that led to my resignation, I have accepted this invitation and will resume my staff duties very shortly.

[TasManOfGod]

You refer to "you" (us) voting staff there but if the voting population is spread over all the SF/CP forum (especially if it includes the no Wof school) then it may well be that there wont be any WoF mods at all.
I can only see that the end result that there will be endless fights between the Wofers (the ones who made the rules) and the non-wofer staff who are supposed to apply them -can you not see the problems?

[probinson]

You refer to "you" (us) voting staff there but if the voting population is spread over all the SF/CP forum (especially if it includes the no Wof school) then it may well be that there wont be any WoF mods at all.
I can only see that the end result that there will be endless fights between the Wofers (the ones who made the rules) and the non-wofer staff who are supposed to apply them -can you not see the problems?
Having worked on staff myself for almost a year, the majority of the staff are very fair, very reasonable people.

Sure, there were staff members that I thought showed biases in the extreme (but then, some thought the same of me), and there were those that I thought abused their power, but most, if not all, of that will go away with the new staff election process. Who is going to vote for a power hungry staff member, regardless of what they believe?

Staff aren't there to have theological debates with, and they're not here to argue with us about what we as Word of Faith adherents want to make the criteria for debate. They are there to enforce, not create, the rules, which we have been given the power to create and maintain ourselves.

[TasManOfGod]

The whole concept that Erwin was bringing in was that those who make the rules apply them. When you get such diverse diferences as wofers and non wofers on issues that call for peace in the forum -we may as well suggest that we also interchage mods with the RCC forum.
We mustn't forget in all this that WoF elected staff (if there were any) would also be compelled to mod in non-wof forums -This whole scenario is totally against Erwin's wishes

[probinson]

The whole concept that Erwin was bringing in was that those who make the rules apply them. When you get such diverse diferences as wofers and non wofers on issues that call for peace in the forum -we may as well suggest that we also interchage mods with the RCC forum
If the rules state "We believe that healing is for all", for example, and someone comes in and says "God doens't want to heal you", ANY objective person will be able to see CLEARLY that violates the wiki, and therefore they would not be permitted to debate in the forum.

Why does a Word of Faith person have to be the one to do that?

[Father Rick]

As to tenets of faith..

while I understand starting with Rhema's Statement of Faith, it should be pointed out that MANY WoF ministries, including Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Frederick Price, etc. have Statements of Faith that do not agree with Rhema's on every point. If the rules say that one must hold to Rhema's Statement of Faith to truly be WoF--- then by that definition, Kenneth Copeland's ministry isn't WoF, nor is Keith Moore, Andrew Wommack, Frederick K.C. Price, nor quite a number of other well known WoF ministers...

Now obviously, Copeland is WoF... so obviously taking just Rhema's statement of faith doesn't work.


For what it's worth, before the changes I had been asked by staff to research and draw up a Statement of Faith for the WoF forum based on a composite of the main streams of WoF... listing only those things that ALL WoF ministries agreed on.

The following is that Statement of Faith:
WoF FSR's


Since WoF is not comprised of a single denomination, but rather by those who hold to certain beliefs/views of spirituality, the following statement of faith for the WoF forum has been developed by comparing the statements of faith of several major WoF ministries and compiling those points in which all were in agreement:

We believe:

… in one God; One in essence, nature, and attributes, but existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

…in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, of His shed blood on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins, of His bodily resurrection and ascension to the Father's right hand.

…in the baptism with the Holy Spirit. We believe this experience is distinct from the new birth. We believe in speaking with tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance, and the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit.

…all who, in repentance and faith, receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and Lord are born again.

…the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the infallible rule of faith and conduct.

…the Church consists of all those who have received Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

…the redemptive work of Christ on the cross has provided healing for the human body.

…spiritual gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit are for the common good and building up of others today

…there will be a literal, physical second return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

…there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust; one to everlasting life and one to everlasting damnation.

[TasManOfGod]

If the rules state "We believe that healing is for all", for example, and someone comes in and says "God doens't want to heal you", ANY objective person will be able to see CLEARLY that violates the wiki, and therefore they would not be permitted to debate in the forum.

Why does a Word of Faith person have to be the one to do that?
For a start he may not even know what WoF believe

[probinson]

For a start he may not even know what WoF believe
Hence the need for a complete statement of faith in the wiki.

[J4Jesus]

[quote=God_Owned;36659387]





It may be this wiki business that is keeping osme away. It messes with my computer which is why I am responding in this way. Every time I make a post it kick me back to the main wiki thread from which I have to go to "discussion" which takes as much a 4 minutes to come up. ...and it isn't my computer. Everything else is working fine.

Mine is getting stuck sometimes too. I think thats just how it works to go back and you have go down to "Discussion" after making a post. Its a pain.
I can see how that could be a problem for those on dial -up






On this you and I disagree and always will because your view on debate is not scriptural and therefore I won't consider it. ...but it does interfere in the learning process. Your un-scriptural judgment of those who engage in debate is a source of strife or are not edifying the body is a source of strife because you are imposing an un-scriptural underhanded emotionally driven accusations on others. I hope that you will soon rightlly divide the Word about debate.

I am interested in setting up a set of rules which will enable WOFers to have honest word based conversation/debates, etc without being accused of flaming. Also rules which allow for masculine and feminine humor. IMHO, many women, and some men, in the WOF forum have unjustly accused many of flaming because they simply had their emotions ruffled. This is wrong and this flaming thing needs to be reeled in so it an't be used as a weapon. It needs to be addressed in the rules.






I'm sorry if you can't understand what I mean when I say that is NOT what I am talking about . I would appreciate you not saying I am judging those who debate because I did not say its not ok to debate. I will say again for the 3rd time it IS OK to debate. We need to leave that subject and move on please.




I agree the flaming needs to stop.



.

[TasManOfGod]

I have no problem with Rhema statement of faith because a far as I am concerned Rhema IS Word of Faith
Others may well have trained there and set up ministries based on what they believe(including some of Rhema) but you cannot call such diverse range of doctrines as WoF

[J4Jesus]

What is the assurance that only WoF staff will mod the Wof forum?
We could vote on that. But if none were available we would have to accept someone that is closed to our beliefs I'd think, since we must have someone.

[probinson]

As to tenets of faith..

while I understand starting with Rhema's Statement of Faith, it should be pointed out that MANY WoF ministries, including Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Frederick Price, etc. have Statements of Faith that do not agree with Rhema's on every point. If the rules say that one must hold to Rhema's Statement of Faith to truly be WoF--- then by that definition, Kenneth Copeland's ministry isn't WoF, nor is Keith Moore, Andrew Wommack, Frederick K.C. Price, nor quite a number of other well known WoF ministers...

Now obviously, Copeland is WoF... so obviously taking just Rhema's statement of faith doesn't work.



Rhema: http://www.rhema.org/about/tenets_faith.cfm
Copeland: http://www.kcm.org/about/faith_statement.php
Wommack: http://www.awmi.net/about_us/statement_of_faith
Price: http://www.crenshawchristiancenter.net/ecomm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=8

I've read all of those statements of faith, and I don't see a single contradiction in any of them with any other.

Rhema's is by far the most verbose, but there is no disagreement.

[TasManOfGod]

It seems to me that the Wof forum questioning whether the mods know what Wof is all about and if they dont they will have to be taught it before they can effectively mod there. That of course would go the other way -WoF mods would have to be conversant with non -WoF doctrine before they could mod in their forum -It all sounds so clumsy to me and I dont think what Erwin had in mind

[TasManOfGod]

We could vote on that. But if none were available we would have to accept someone that is closed to oru bleifs I'd think, since we must have someone.
It would all depend on the system of voting . Perhaps due to numbers there would be no WoF staff voted in at all unless we could only vote for staff to look after our own forum

[Father Rick]

Rhema: http://www.rhema.org/about/tenets_faith.cfm
Copeland: http://www.kcm.org/about/faith_statement.php
Wommack: http://www.awmi.net/about_us/statement_of_faith
Price: http://www.crenshawchristiancenter.net/ecomm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=8

I've read all of those statements of faith, and I don't see a single contradiction in any of them with any other.

Rhema's is by far the most verbose, but there is no disagreement.
Rhema's is both the most verbose and the most restrictive. It states things that none of the others list as requirements for being WoF.

So... one could perfectly hold to the statement of faith for KC's ministry, believe everything that KC teaches... and still not be considered WoF by Rhema's standards.

The same goes for those who may be part of Frederick Price's ministry, etc.

It's actually well known that Copeland and Hagin had disagreements on points of theology-- although both are/were leading WoF teachers.


According to the current Rhema statement of faith... if Copeland were to join CF, he couldn't teach in the WoF forum. Same for Wommack and Price... since there are areas that they don't state/teach are mandatory (such as baptism by immersion).

You have to remember that there are several main "streams" of WoF-- each with a few differences on minor points. If you insist that WoF only follow one stream of teaching, then you have shut out many genuine WoF'ers.

[probinson]

It seems to me that the Wof forum questioning whether the mods know what Wof is all about and if they dont they will have to be taught it before they can effectively mod there. That of course would go the other way -WoF mods would have to be conversant with non -WoF doctrine before they could mod in their forum -It all sounds so clumsy to me and I dont think what Erwin had in mind
That would be true IF mods were modding theology.

They are not.

WE create that statement of belief. Here. Now.

The better job we do now, the less problems we'll have later.

[J4Jesus]

But if it makes you feel any better, I have been invited to re-join staff for the transition from now until the end of the year. Being as I feel the new CF satisfactorily addresses the issues that led to my resignation, I have accepted this invitation and will resume my staff duties very shortly.

ALRIGHT PETE!! WOOHOO!:clap: :tutu: :D

Thank you Lord! :clap:

[God_Owned]

If the No Debate tag were implemented in the wau I suggested, it would go in the thread title, which would make it visible on the forum page. It would be the very first thing you saw, before you ever clicked the thread link.

OK, I'm good with that one.

That's odd. But I don't think it's a problem with CF or the wiki. I'm not experiencing anything like that.

Odd or not, it is the case and I expect I am not the only one experiencing this, of course they may never bother voicing it.

Originally Posted by God_Owned http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36659387#post36659387)
I strongly recommend you take out the word "but" in the following statement because it effectively means that all that went before the "but"is null and void, which is not true.


Hmmm. Not sure about that. That is the way the Rhema Tenets of Faith have been written, verbatim, for years;

Why do you care how this was written for years? You said the Tenants of Faith were open to changes and have considered other changes or is just my changes you aren't considering here. I have given you the correct rendering of the statement and the easy fix to make it read right.

You may not be sure, but I am. You see what "but" just did to my statement? The literal rendering is, your doubt makes not difference because I am sure.

I correctly explained to you what the use of the word "but" does to the Rhema statement in question. The way "but" is used here is telling the reader that they needn't consider the oneness of God because He is three persons. The word "but" is, not only incorrect, it is also unnecessary to get the intended point across.

You don't understand the effect of the conjunction"but" in the English language. "but is exclusionary. Read the following.

BUT...

1. To suggest a contrast that is unexpected in light of the first clause: "Joey lost a fortune in the stock market, but he still seems able to live quite comfortably."
2. To suggest in an affirmative sense what the first part of the sentence implied in a negative way (sometimes replaced by on the contrary): "The club never invested foolishly, but used the services of a sage investment counselor."
3. To connect two ideas with the meaning of "with the exception of" (and then the second word takes over as subject): "Everybody but Goldenbreath is trying out for the team."

Again, not sure why we would need to change "Spirit" to "Ghost". Could you please explain further why you feel that is necessary?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? How about you aren't sure why you would need to change "Spirit" to "Ghost". If you want me to explain it to you , that is fine, but I don't believe you qualified to make such a request for others. I didn't realize you were in charge here.

In answer to your question, Holy Ghost sounds more distinctive that Holy Spirit. The word "spirit" is used in many different ways in the KJV, but Holy Ghost always means the same thing.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

You are entertaining other people's personal preferences here. Did you intend to entertain mine with equal zeal? :confused:

[probinson]

Rhema's is both the most verbose and the most restrictive. It states things that none of the others list as requirements for being WoF.

So... one could perfectly hold to the statement of faith for KC's ministry, believe everything that KC teaches... and still not be considered WoF by Rhema's standards

The same goes for those who may be part of Frederick Price's ministry, etc.

It's actually well known that Copeland and Hagin had disagreements on points of theology-- although both are/were leading WoF teachers.
That doesn't change the core set of beliefs, because Copeland and Hagin had disagreements on point of theology.

According to the current Rhema statement of faith... if Copeland were to join CF, he couldn't teach in the WoF forum. Same for Wommack and Price... since there are areas that they don't state/teach are mandatory (such as baptism by immersion).
The Rhema Tenets of faith do not state that you MUST be baptized to be Word of Faith. They simply state that they believe that water baptism is a commandment from Jesus (which, it is), and that it is for believers only.

I sincerely doubt that Copeland would disagree with that statement, and would not, as you suggested, disqualify him from posting at CF.

[J4Jesus]

Rhema: http://www.rhema.org/about/tenets_faith.cfm
Copeland: http://www.kcm.org/about/faith_statement.php
Wommack: http://www.awmi.net/about_us/statement_of_faith
Price: http://www.crenshawchristiancenter.net/ecomm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=8

I've read all of those statements of faith, and I don't see a single contradiction in any of them with any other.

Rhema's is by far the most verbose, but there is no disagreement.

I agree. And it does say "generally held". I like it. I dont see any contradictions but maybe more fully stated the way we have it.

[TasManOfGod]

That would be true IF mods were modding theology.

They are not.

WE create that statement of belief. Here. Now.

The better job we do now, the less problems we'll have later.
I agree the statement of faith needs to be done so the forum will run smothly based on it but if it is unknown to the staff it ill be useless and at best and possibly divisive leading to member/staff conflict

[God_Owned]

Rhema: http://www.rhema.org/about/tenets_faith.cfm
Copeland: http://www.kcm.org/about/faith_statement.php
Wommack: http://www.awmi.net/about_us/statement_of_faith
Price: http://www.crenshawchristiancenter.net/ecomm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=8

I've read all of those statements of faith, and I don't see a single contradiction in any of them with any other.

Rhema's is by far the most verbose, but there is no disagreement.

Pete, on this we agree.

I don't see any of these supposed contrdictions either.

[TasManOfGod]

It seems that all for the sake of holding on to mother SF/CP apron strings we are going to put ourselves through difficulties when in fact we have the ideal opportunity to solve them.

[J4Jesus]

I'd like to point out that the Copelands and Price were students at Rhema and were trained by Hagin. So I would prefer Rhema's, if you can understand what I mean. I believe it's very sound and thorough

[God_Owned]

I agree. And it does say "generally held". I like it. I dont see any contradictions but maybe more fully stated the way we have it.

I agree with you! Man did that feel good! ^_^

[TasManOfGod]

Would anybody who did not agree with the pope on every issue not be allowed to post in OBOB?
Should that stop OBOB holding onto the tenents from where they originate?

[Father Rick]

That doesn't change the core set of beliefs, because Copeland and Hagin had disagreements on point of theology.

The Rhema Tenets of faith do not state that you MUST be baptized to be Word of Faith. They simply state that they believe that water baptism is a commandment from Jesus (which, it is), and that it is for believers only.

I sincerely doubt that Copeland would disagree with that statement, and would not, as you suggested, disqualify him from posting at CF.
You misread my post...

My comment was that the Rhema SoF states that baptism MUST be by immersion. KC's statement of faith doesn't state this--- nor have I ever heard him teach such. If KC doesn't believe that baptism is by immersion only, then he doesn't qualify as WoF by the proposed statement of faith....

That is just one example, but it shows how the restrictiveness (aka legalism) of certain points of the Rhema statement of faith actual would disqualify most of the leading WoF teachers-- since they don't all agree with the more restrictive definitions given.

Additionally, the Rhema SoF states that (relating to the Trinity) "the Father is greater than all"-- yet also says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal. It actually contradicts itself here. I have heard Copeland teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are equal to each other and none of them are greater than the other. Again, Copeland would be disqualifed from being WoF...

I have also repeatedly heard Copeland, Moore, and Price teach that healing may be through methods other than just the two listed by the Rhema SoF (prayer and laying on of hands). The Rhema SoF states it comes through those two means (which it may). KC, etc. also teach it may come through a) faith in/hearing the Word, b) anointing of the sick, and c) a spoken word/prophecy. The wording of the Rhema SoF actually implies only 2 means by which healing is "wrought".

I could keep going, but I think it should be obvious that taking the statement of faith from only one ministry/stream of WoF and making it the litmus test for ALL WoF is insufficient.

[probinson]

Why do you care how this was written for years? You said the Tenants of Faith were open to changes and have considered other changes or is just my changes you aren't considering here. I have given you the correct rendering of the statement and the easy fix to make it read right.

I didn't say I wasn't considering it. I simply don't see a need for it. Simple. But it's not up to me. It's up to the majority vote.

Thanks for the grammar lesson, but I'm well aware of what the conjunction "but" means. http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h128/petesarah/Smilies/rolleyes.gif


Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Uh, no. Do you have a chip on your shoulder? :P

How about you aren't sure why you would need to change "Spirit" to "Ghost". If you want me to explain it to you , that is fine, but I don't believe you qualified to make such a request for others. I didn't realize you were in charge here.
I was asking a simple question. No need to get all "emotional" :P


In answer to your question, Holy Ghost sounds more distinctive that Holy Spirit. The word "spirit" is used in many different ways in the KJV, but Holy Ghost always means the same thing.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

You are entertaining other people's personal preferences here. Did you intend to entertain mine with equal zeal? :confused:
I asked you to clarify apoint that I didn't undertand. That's all. Thank you for doing so.


Now, in response to that, I still don't understand, because the scripture you quoted in your example above is translated "Holy Spirit" in nearly every translation of scripture. Matthew 28:19 (NIV)
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 28:19 (AMP)
Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 28:19 (ASV)
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Matthew 28:19 (NLT)
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 28:19 (YLT)
having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

I'm not trying to be argumentative or discount your personal preferences in wording. I'm just trying to understand why it is you see a difference in "Ghost" and "Spirit", nothing more, nothing less.

[God_Owned]

I'd like to point out that the Copelands and Price were students at Rhema and were trained by Hagin. So I would prefer Rhema's, if you can understand what I mean. I believe it's very sound and thorough

WOW, I agree with you again. One more time and we can call it a roll. ^_^

[God_Owned]

Thanks for the grammar lesson, but I'm well aware of what the conjunction "but" means.

Then you should know I am right.


Uh, no. Do you have a chip on your shoulder? :P

Not emotion at all, just making some exacting observations.

Now, in response to that, I still don't understand, because the scripture you quoted in your example above is translated "Holy Spirit" in nearly every translation of scripture.
Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 28:19 (AMP)

Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Matthew 28:19 (NKJV)

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Matthew 28:19 (ASV)

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:


Matthew 28:19 (NLT)

Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.


Matthew 28:19 (YLT)

having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
I'm not