Remind me about Andrew Wommack

[Nikos]

I see things differently. I like the idea that a denomination has more than one view of scripture. I like the idea that I can be an independent thinker. I do not see that a denomination's purpose is to stand for a particular doctrine, but it will naturally form around its history. I do believe that it is all right for a denom to have an emphasis on a doctrine but it should not force its members to believe it. Denoms are a vehicle to provide a place to preach, and preachers get together and form an organization to provide that. Yes they must stay within the essential truths of scripture and no off bible doctrinal views should be tolerated. Groups formed around a person will rise or fall with that person's character. A person who allows a group to use their name, such as Andrew W, shows them to be prideful.

[Valiant Woman]

Excellent point!

Or another way to look at it is that there are so many teachers out there teaching many different things. When you attach your name to a ministry, folks know what to expect when they tune in to your teachings. You could tune in to a variety of denominational teachers/preachers and get varying doctrines within the same denomination. When I listen to an Andrew Wommack I know what he is about, and consider that his doctrine is sound. Therefore, I can recommend him to others without worrying that they are going to get some twisted doctrines if they are young in the Lord.

I could not with good conscience just tell a young believer to listen to any Methodist/Baptist/AOG/COG/etc preacher and know that they are getting good teaching.

I know with confidence that I can read the epistles of Paul and get good sound doctrine. Why? Because of his reputation in Christ. The same goes for others who may use their name as their ministry name.

[Valiant Woman]

A person who allows a group to use their name, such as Andrew W, shows them to be prideful.

That is blantlantly untrue. To say that all ministries with the names of men or women on that ministry are prideful is to disparage God’s anointed. You need to be careful painting with such a broad brush. There was and is no “pride” involved in many ministries led by men or women; and Andrew Wommack is not a prideful man. He would’ve fallen long ago if he were.

[Bookman]

Groups formed around a person will rise or fall with that person's character.

There go the Lutherans.

[Quest]

Not even the apostle Paul?

Well...in HINDSIGHT I have confidence in his 'letters'..

[Quest]

I don't see the name on the ministry as relevant....but then again, names have never been important to me....when I see a really good movie I can tell you the story line in detail...who played the parts I have no clue....

[Valiant Woman]

There go the Lutherans.

[Nikos]

Thanks. The Lutherans are a good example of what I was saying. They are a modern org without holiness standards. I would not call Luther a man of holiness.

[Nikos]

Excellent point!

Thanks!

[Nikos]

I don't see the name on the ministry as relevant....but then again, names have never been important to me....when I see a really good movie I can tell you the story line in detail...who played the parts I have no clue....

Aren't names important in the Bible. The org. is a reflection of the person.