Talk:Word of Faith

contrasting definition

'The basic doctrine renounces the idea that Christians must be poor and/or suffer defeat'

contrasting definition needed, it's unclear what this is in contrast to. is there an 'opposite' doctrine?

Arthur (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be better stated that the idea that Christians must never suffer is in contrast to the life of Apostle Paul who suffered extensively for the Gospel. LionheartLambsoul (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Critics and controversy section

Much (if not all) of the information in this section needs to be rewritten and/or integrated into other sections and articles.   — C M B J   03:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The content a year or so ago was better quality - The article should be re-written using much of that original content. June 29 2013 (WOGP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordofGOD'Spower (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This section should not be split into a separate article. To do so would give the impression that Word of Faith teaching is uncontested and represents mainline orthodox Christian opinion. That is simply not the case. It is deeply controversial. The controversy needs to be acknowledged in the main article. Emphron (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Very confused as to the reasoning behind including LDS objections to the Little 'g' gods section. They are not believers in evangelical Christianity and have their own testament and own separate theology. It's useful and relevant information -somewhere- but irrelevant and distracting here. Thistledowne (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it fits well there. Little gods is a unique and distinctive doctrine of LDS. Similarity of WOF doctrine to a non-mainstream sect is relevant to discussion of whether WOF is out of mainstream orthodoxy.

This criticism does not undercut the article’s objective tone. LionheartLambsoul (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Connections with Prosperity Theology

I'm not sure why this article starts with the line, "Not to be confused with Prosperity Theology," when a subsection is entitled "Prosperity" with a link to the "Prosperity Theology" page. Is there not at least a significant overlap between the two? Do any notable Word-Faith figures repudiate prosperity theology--and if so, on what grounds? Do some simply not like being labeled with the term? It seems to me that there is enough overlap for a merger between the two articles--perhaps using Word-Faith as the more neutral term, which "Prosperity Theology" (as well as "Health and Wealth") being redirected to it. Schoolmann (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll happily second this idea. If this topic is a duplicate, it should redirect. Arthur (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a weakness, but I don’t see it as a basis to find the article non-objective. LionheartLambsoul (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Origins Section

It appears that the "Origins" section does not actually give the origins of the movement (in its contemporary expression). It rather provides a theological basis from Scripture, which would be fine as a part of the "Teachings" heading. An actual historical section, with content like that in the Prosperity Theology article, would be more appropriate. Or a merger of the two articles, as I've suggested elsewhere. Schoolmann (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Bible passages

The section titled “Bible passages” seems very odd to me. It feels as though a person who may be biased towards the WOF movement decided to quickly throw in every scripture reference used to affirm these beliefs without intending to explain them in a way that would show others how one would interpret them as a WOF member. This needs to be expanded upon. SavannahHinde (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Savannah

The article as a whole shows it is not biased toward WOF. The author is to be commended for citing to relevant authority. Annotations are not needed and could themselves be construed as bias. If you don’t understand the Scriptures cited you should embark on your own study of those passages rather than citing your own questions as a sign of bias on the author’s part. The key word you used was “feel.” You feel the Scriptures were biased. I don’t “think” they were based on my review of the content which did provide context for the cited authority.

The author leaves the reader to consult the primary materials (Scriptures) and reach their own conclusions. This is the hallmark of objective prose. LionheartLambsoul (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The "Teaching" section should be neutral

Hello fellow Wikipedians! In the "Teaching" section of the article, a couple of claims appear without citation, and one in particular ("This among other teachings in the WOFM is an effort to deify man and bring God and Jesus Christ down to the level of man") seems ore like a theological criticism of the movement than a description of its actual teachings. I have added a "citation needed" and a "clarification needed". Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the writing regarding the teachings seems to be very broad and non-neutral. Citations from RS may be of use in making it better constructed, though this is not my field of expertise. It probably deserves a rewrite, since it's rather vague and at times cites no sources to back it up. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This passage seems to have changed such that the criticism is quoted to be from Hank Hannegraaff. It would be polemic to say that the teaching of "little gods" "is" and "effort" to deify man. However, it is appropriate to note that the doctrine raises the question even if that observation involves a bit of theological insight. Because the defect seems to have been corrected, I see no remaining basis to question the objectivity of the piece.2603:7081:6700:F64:D16A:3DDE:5517:85E8 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article is fine as it stands now. I will proceed to remove the flag. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wesleyan?

Hello! I removed the word "Wesleyan" added by user 49.207.193.2 to the description of the movement in the lead section. While Kenyon did indeed come from a Methodist background, and while there may be some inspiration from Wesleyan theology in some of the concepts of the WOF movement, I think most Wesleyan Christians would object to WOF being described as Wesleyan. There is a burden of proof to be lifted if the word is to be reinserted. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a source should be given. But its not too big of a stretch. Word of Faith developed out of pentecostalism, which developed out of Wesleyan groups. There is quite a bit of overlap in overall theology of the movements since they are related. They are have diverged though quite substantially on some points. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues with the "Jesus died spiritually belief" section

In the "Jesus died spiritually belief" section, it talks about Jesus being separated from "God." Does "God" refer to god the father? If so, this should be clarified in this section. In it's current form, it sounds like members of this movement believe there is a separation between Jesus and God, which would make them nontrinitarian, which would be a major departure from orthodox Christianity (which should be clarified in the criticisms section). This would not be true if they are talking about god the father though. Including more citations in this section might also help with this confusion.

Also, this section is listed under "criticisms," but it only briefly mentions one person who criticized this belief. If there is a widespread criticism of this belief, we should mention more critics, and if not, we should remove the section or move it to a different place in the article.

I do not know much about this subject, so I am hoping someone who is more knowledgeable can provide assistance here. Thanks! Theobvioushero (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the orthodox tradition and theology is that his death separated him from the Father; "God" is frequently used as shorthand for "God the Father", so that is the implication of the words you are questioning. I agree, however, that clarity is never a bad thing, and we could probably do better in this section. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I replaced "God" with "God the father" in this section to make it more clear. Theobvioushero (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This article IS fair and objective

Any article can be improved with more citations. But the overall tone of the article legitimately strives to represent WOF teachings as WOF teachers conceive them to be and presents the objectors in their own voices.

The background given on objectors is both robust and concise. The issues chosen for discussion hit the correct main points. Many points of view are acknowledged and no attempts at persuasion are made.

While other criticisms may be helpful, I strongly urge that questions as to objectivity be removed.

By way of background, I have no allegiance to WOF or anti-WOF teachings and am not only a licensed minister but also a retired senior government litigation attorney so I know something about objectivity in written prose. 2603:7081:6700:F64:3CE0:FA41:509:6F24 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the flag. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)