Talk:Kenneth E. Hagin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kenneth E. Hagin article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (rated as Low importance)
Assessment comments
Kenneth E. Hagin was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 21, 2007

Contents

[edit] Library lacking Hagin material

Being greatly disturbed by the accusation of plagiarism on the part of Kenneth Hagin, I determined to find out the truth by obtaining a book by Kenyon from the library and reading it for myself. Those of you who are familiar with the Atlanta-Fulton County Public Library may already be able to guess what I found - nothing. There are no books by Kenyon in the Atlanta-Fulton County Public library. Out of curiosity, I did a search for Hagin, and found nothing by Hagin either, though I did find one by his wife, Oretha Hagin. Accordingly at this moment I have been unable to research on this topic.-Sally from Atlanta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.60.2 (talk) 11:47, January 22, 2006 (UTC) (Not really "unsigned", however, this makes it possible to relate this entry to the page history)

Go to any Christian book store and look in the Charismatic section and you'll find a lot of his books. BraDavWikipedia 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus on plagiarism exaggerated

The Christian Faith is learned and taught by absorbing and passing on information and understanding. These writers give the issue of alleged plagarism way too much importance. If Hagin had been a philosopher, researcher, or academic, or had in some way held himself out as an originator of new thought there might be pause for concern. As it is now that which is referred to as plagarism is merely a monument to the lack of basic understanding of the factors involved. To be a credible preacher of the Gospel requires one to be an uber-plagarist in one sense of the word, but the calling does not bind one to tradition so strongly. If a preacher writes or speaks about anything having to do with the Gospel he is stating things that others have said or written, with some room for personal observations. One gets the idea that for some of the "commentators" to be satisfied, Bro. Hagin would have to have only said or written things that both everyone and noone had ever said before. It is like he could have done nothing to please them.

From a copyright perspective, if Hagin made a derivative work basing the new work on a previous work written by another author, the only one who might have a legitimate gripe would be the author of the first work that the derivative work was based upon. Beyond issues of copyright there are no issues here, and it is a relatively common practice for authors of christian works to ignore these matters entirely, the guiding principle being that anyone and everyone should be free to preach the Gospel any way they want to with no recriminations or sequelae from it.

Bro. Hagin was not out to impress a bunch of academic windbags, he was just trying to impart information to the reader. The likelihood is great that most of the readers of Bro Hagin's books really do not care where the information on the pages of the book came from...as long as it is accurate and useful in the living of the christian life. I was skeptical of his teaching early on, but carefully and systematically have over the years discovered him to be the most credible christian teacher I have ever followed after, and there have been many. As a youngster I was a victim of very extreme emotional-religious abuse, and these things mean more to me than they probably mean to most people, certainly more than you might imagine. Getting this right is everything to me.

There is much written about him concerning teachings on prosperity and the Word of Faith(which is a biblical phrase, whereas the saying word-faith is not, ironically), but apparently few of his detractors know or understand that a big part of his ministry had to do with healing. They do not say much about that, because the scrutiny concerning why a healing ministry is NOT part of their own experience would be too embarrassing and uncomfortable. One or another of them might spend 30 hours or days in research and writing trying to explain why healing is not for today, but not 30 seconds praying asking God why they did not have a healing ministry in operation and manifestation to glorify God and minister to the people in their own experience.

If Jesus were in town preaching tonight he would have a healing service. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. There are several Gospel accounts of Jesus' healing meetings where all the people who were sick there got well and the demon-posesssed were delivered. Further, the bible says that Jesus always did the will of the Father, hence it IS GOD'S WILL for people to be healed. That's the important take-home point here. All the rest is window-dressing.

The people who write negative things about Brother Hagin would be well advised to quit writing about things they have no familiarity with and stick to something they know....like consorting with "the accuser of the brethren", it would appear!!

I know they think they are helping many people by their writings and sayings but are not remotely successful, and the arguments they posit and the quotations they key on are very illustrative of their lack of even a rudimentary, basic grasp of the factors and concepts involved. Many of the main points they huff and puff and carry on so much about are laughable if it were not for the fact that peoples' spiritual lives are at stake.

I would challenge and encourage anyone to take up an honest study of Bro. Hagin's teachings rather than study what the heresy hunters and "chicken little prophets"(Oh, My, the sky is falling!)have to say. Read the man, Kenneth E. Hagin, Sr., and read the bible.


Chuck Snow


bigrfish@bellsouth.net

traditional copyright 2006

license granted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.111.27.9 (talk) 09:21, March 26, 2006 (UTC) (Not really "unsigned", however, this makes it possible to relate this entry to the page history)

Brother Chuck, thank you for the "chicken little prophets" phrase!
This perfectly describes many in mainstream religious circles who need to know Jesus Christ much better than they do. Great stuff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.107.247 (talk) 02:59, April 7, 2006 (UTC)
The love of Christ is embodied by the love of truth. That Kenneth Hagin stole his materials and claimed he got them directly from God is an irrefutable FACT. Numerous links and documentation exist to prove it to anyone who has an open mind. Merely cutting out material based on personal choice - as opposed to whether it is factual - is the attitude of CRUSADERS. RESEARCHERS must deal with the facts as they are handed to them. Though not all researchers will interpret the same data the same way, they must deal with the same FACTS.
Your willingness to claim you know what God would do is precisely the same methodology used during the Crusades and the Inquisition. I'm not concerned with the theological argument; this site is a biographical stub of Kenneth Hagin. What is stated about him are FACTS. If you have FACTS that contradict the existing FACTS, please provide them. Many people use Wikipedia for research and you are doing a disservice to all who do just because you don't like the information provided.
Maestroh (bnmbrown2@yahoo.com) —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, April 7, 2006 Note This entry was deleted by a subsequent contributor and was reinstated 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childish behavior by editors deleting article entries

note this article undergoing a number of deletions of FACTUAL material. I would appreciate anyone who can present FACTS to the contrary to actually provide them. I have documented Hagin's numerous plagiarisms and I have provided a link for any person interested in independent study.

This article is a FAIR AND ACCURATE representation of what happened/was done by Mr. Hagin. I have no problem with editing - but to remove material simply because you don't like it - is among the most childish of behaviors. We have nothing to fear from the truth. We have EVERYTHING to fear from a lie. So please quit excising stuff simply because you don't like the information provided.

Should we remove the fact Lee Harvey Oswald is Kennedy's alleged assassin simply because that offends someone? No, it is a FACT. Likewsie, Hagin's sickness and plagiarisms contradict his numerous claims. They are FACTS - and as I stated earlier, if one who opposes these facts will provide A CLEARER PICTURE of how those facts are to be viewed, I am more than willing to quit editing this article. But I will continue to make FACTS available along with links that prove the FACTS.

Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, April 12, 2006 Note This entry was deleted by a subsequent contributor and was reinstated 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maestroh, if what was written was factual based on the evidence researched and you are saying that there was no bias written then why are the words "heresy" continually used to describe his teaching. That would be an opinion of ones feelings toward his teaching and not based on FACT..these are things that should be deleted... Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.85.35 (talk) 04:57, January 13, 2007 (UTC)
Heresy is NOT an opinion; it is a violation of orthodoxy. Hagin's teaching that Jesus ministered only as God was declared a heresy in 451. 71.164.153.245 07:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Maestroh
To state that a person's teaching is regarded as heretical by others is certainly to state a fact. To state that any specific belief is heretical per se can surely be nothing but an opinion, regardless of who declared what, even Irenaeus or an Ecumenical Council, and I think that the "backbone of Christian criticism of gnosticism" needs substantiation. However, that minor quibble aside, the article as it currently stands does the former, so I don't see a problem. The Angel of Islington 05:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It was I who added the backbone phrase in a way that I assumed was uncontroversial. I do not intend to back it up with sources, so if it is deemed dubious or for other reasons needs a reference, I suggest it be removed or rephrased in a suitable manner. __meco 20:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sowing discord aids the devil

The devil needs no help or consorters from within the church in his attacks on the church. Sowing discord among the brethren is helping the enemy with his job. There is a lot of wisdom in your parent's admonishment; "If you have nothing good to say about someone, say nothing at all." I've never heard or seen Kenneth Hagin say or print a negative thing about anyone even those who openly criticized him. He walked and talked the same language. Randy Rogillio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.80.42 (talk) 15:09, April 22, 2006 (UTC) (Not really "unsigned", however, this makes it possible to relate this entry to the page history)

This response is typical of Hagin's followers and is hardly any different than those who blindly followed David Koresh or Jim Jones. No attempt is made at finding out the TRUTH. Walking in love - which everyone seems to want to claim that Hagin did - cannot be separated from walking in truth. Hagin said PLENTY of negative things about people - he just didn't name those he criticized. He even went so far as to claim that a man died early because he didn't receive Hagin's message (see "I Believe In Visions," pp. 114-115). Even his harshest critics have never gloried in Hagin's demise. The lack of concern for truth regarding this issue is indeed the most disheartening. Regarding sowing discord, Hagin began that himself when he opted to teach heresies that we are commanded not to receive.
I do not harbor any 'ill feelings' toward Mr. Hagin. Indeed, my uncle is on staff at Rhema and has been since 1983. The article is FACTUAL - Hagin did plagiarize. I make no moral judgments whether it was intentional or not (Simmons maintains it is; McConnell maintains it might be). The fact is that these intellectual property thefts certainly call into question whether or not Hagin actually saw Jesus as he claims. In one instance of his seeing Jesus, Jesus plagiarized Kenyon. There are things that I wish were not true about some of my heroes; it is childish, however, to delete material just because it offends you. I've stated it before and I'll state it again: demonstrate EVIDENCE (as is shown on the site) that Hagin did not plagiarize or had another excuse, and I will be happy to include it in the article.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 16:43, April 24, 2006
The emotional nature of the debate on this page does not surprise me. The only thing that does surprise me is the lengthy debate on objective vs. subjective genetive in Mk. 11. The vast majority of scholars translate this as an objective genetive but the subjective translation cannot be absolutely ruled out. While this minor point is being debated here, many of Hagin's more controversial and heretical (by standard Evangelical and Pentecostal standards) statements that echo Kenyon's are not even mentioned in the article. Perhaps that can be remedied. I am amazed that Chuck Snow does not seem to know that most of Hagin's critics are themselves believers in divine healing.--Niceguy2all 02:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"There are things that I wish were not true about some of my heroes;" - Indeed, the moral failings of just about every man of God has had some detracting effect on their sphere of influence. Take king David for example, his episode with adultery politically crippled him with regards to exercising moral authority in his kingdom in many recorded instances throughout his life. It is a good thing that we keep our eyes on Jesus and not on people. When people shine Jesus, we need to be extra careful to see Jesus and not the people through whom He is shining. --DavidPesta 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"This response is typical of Hagin's followers and is hardly any different than those who blindly followed David Koresh or Jim Jones." - Congratulations, you have just written somebody off without truly addressing the heart of what they said. You will never convince Chuck Snow of anything by responding to him in this way. If you say that Chuck's response is similar to those who blindly follow David Koresh or Jim Jones, then what you need to do is perform a comparative analysis of those who defend David Koresh or Jim Jones with Chuck Snow's statement. To make this accusation without substantiating it with this kind of comparative analysis isn't very honest. Address the points Chuck Snow made without writing him off. --DavidPesta 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hagin said PLENTY of negative things about people - he just didn't name those he criticized. He even went so far as to claim that a man died early because he didn't receive Hagin's message" - If he never named those he criticized, then that is a testimony of considerable restraint and establishes the original point. Please note that Jesus constantly criticized people of whom He disagreed without singling anyone out in particular by naming them. As for the story of the man who died early as a result of not receiving Hagin's message, I'm sure the story of Ananias and Sapphira caused Peter to take a tremendous amount of heat from some. Tell my why I am wrong without resorting to an argument that begs the question. --DavidPesta 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In conclusion - Hagin sounds like a very interesting man, despite his mistakes, and I look forward to learning more about him. --DavidPesta 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr Pesta,
I have no need to address Chuck Snow's points when there are no valid ones. Chuck continued to write false testimony - including one saying "Hagin rose up healed" when the FACT is that the man died in a coma in a hospital. Given all the man taught on healing, I'd say that's pretty significant.
Do you honestly believe anyone who fires the accusation of heresy hunters at someone is even worthy of a response in the first place? I don't. His edit was responded to with the same shallowness it exhibits.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: WHAT IN THE ARTICLE ABOUT HAGIN IS Bold textUNTRUEBold text?
The rest of it is better kept for discussion boards and not places like an online encyclopedia.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 15:29, August 17, 2006
Niceguy,
They were here earlier and repeatedly removed. I'm in the information business (here) - not in the 'let's tear Hagin down' business. Also, the Mark 11:22 passage was originally brought up in NPOV form earlier by someone else. I merely extrapolated upon it.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 15:29, August 17, 2006


Dear Randy
Telling the truth about a person - both good and bad - is what an encyclopedia is all about. It is NOT a place to grind your own theological axe or begin spouting about 'helping the enemy with his job.' Whether Hagin ever said a bad thing about anyone or not is completely IRRELEVANT to whether or not he plagiarized his material.
I think that in light of Hagin's place as the 'founding father of the Faith movement,' the fact he plagiarized the doctrines that made him famous is indeed IMPORTANT AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. I feel the same way about Martin Luther King, Alex Haley, and Norman Vincent Peale.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 15:29, August 17, 2006
Dear Randy,
Brother I want to point out one MAJOR flaw in your reasoning. You are comparing Hagin to those with apostolic authority. It has long been common practice of Word of Faith teachers to claim this. Not outright, mind you, but by claiming to have new revelations from God. I was brought up to believe that the word of God was true and COMPLETE (read 2 Cor.). We were instructed to check the spirits with scripture, and to flee from those presenting doctrine different from that which the apostles had already presented.
In Christ Our Savior,
James Belcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.197.55 (talk) 15:53, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out a major flaw in YOUR reasoning, Mr. Belcher. 2 Cor was definitely written by Paul the apostle, BEFORE NT books as such as John and Revelations. Ergo, to use 2 Corr. as proof of canonical completeness is completely invalid, unless Athanasius and gang got it all quite wrong (and since this was 367 AD, they sure might have!). Of course, anyone raised with a liberal western education will recognize that even without this timeline issue, proving something true by quoting it is no valid proof at all.
These Word of Faith people do not need to be confronted with "love", simple hard facts and some bright sunlight on their finances will do. (yeah, just like you I recognized their "unique worldview" right away, "Shh....if you speak bad about us you're supporting the devil!")
Sincerely, Calvin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.31.22 (talk) 12:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite section on Mark 11:22

The passage about Mark 11:22 should be corrected/rewritten. Kenneth Hagin never claimed the Greek said "god-kind of faith". But the only literal translation of the Greek is "Have God's faith". There is no other way of faithfully and literally translating the Greek here. Hagin just said and taught that "God's faith" refers to a certain kind of faith, a spiritual faith. It has to be stated that a certain way of interpretation is controversial but Hagin was right about the Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.254.185.104 (talk) 10:49, April 26, 2006 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.221.117 (talk) 19:39, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

I believe your claim is inaccurate on a number of accounts. Your first portion claims that Hagin never said the Greek said god-kind of faith. I do not have the book in front of me, but I would make two points in defense of this: 1) one of Hagin's arch defenders, Troy Edwards, claims at his webiste that Hagin DID teach God-kind of faith on page 80 of "New Thresholds of Faith." I interacted with Edwards a number of years ago and see no reason to think he's lying about it. 2) Hagin's own bookstore has a tape series available called The God-Kind of Faith at this link: http://www.rhema.org/bookstore/cart40/product.php?productid=118&cat=95&bestseller
Therefore, I believe your claim is inaccurate, but I will finalize that point in the next few days.
Secondly, you are woefully incorrect on the literal translation. The Greek phrase echete pistin theou is - if one disregards both context and syntax (which in the real world you cannot do) - is "have faith OF God." It says NOTHING about God 'having faith.'
Hagin was NOT in any way right about the Greek. The very source of 'god-kind of faith,' A.T. Robertson, clearly stated that 'God has faith' was completely absurd. This is contained in the article, so I really don't see what your point is. I believe Hagin taught it from years of reading his books - but I will check it again. Yet most of the case is already made since I cited that very title in Hagin's bookstore - the title you claim he never made.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 04:41, April 27, 2006
I never said Hagin did not teach "god-kind of faith". But as far as I know (and I am a graduate of Rhema Bible Training Center) he never claimed that "Have the God-kind of faith" is the literal translation of Mark 11:22 (which it is not!) but interpreted it this way. The Greek can literally be translated "God's faith" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.248.177 (talk) 15:01, April 28, 2006 (UTC)
According to whom can this be translated as such? And how much Greek have you personally studied since the last time I checked it was not even taught as a language at Rhema?
And here's a better question for you: why does it need to be reworded? You state, 'he never claimed...is the literal translation,' but if you go back and read the article, I never said he did, either. I said he RENDERED it as 'God-kind of faith' (which he most certainly did) and also that he clearly did so on the basis of a distortion of A.T. Robertson. I DID NOT say that Hagin claimed it was the literal translation - and I would point out to you as a Rhema grad, you're positive confession that I did is not going to make it so.
If you've not studied the language, you have no business making this claim. I'm assuming you are the same person who wrote the response below this one. Yet you are claiming that 'have God's faith' is the only 'literal translation.'
A better question for you, however, might be this: since you wish to argue 'literal translation' at the expense of the immediate context in Mark 11:22, do you also do so in I Corinthians 14:2 - it would then say that those who speak in tongues speak 'unto A God' as opposed to THE God. Now, I realize that there are other rules of Greek syntax that preclude that interpretation - but if you're going to be consistent regarding literlism, you have no choice but to accept it. You do not even address the issue of subjective and objective genitives.
I've studied Greek since 1998, working my way through Dobson, McNair, Mounce, and Wallace. I posit myself no scholar, but this passage is being twisted by Mr. Hagin and his followers to say something that it simply doesn't say. Wallace cites Mark 11:22 as one of TWO CLEAR examples of pistis plus an objective personal genitive in the NT (see Walllace, "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics," p. 116.
Perhaps a better question might be what kind of god needs faith anyway? But I digress. However, I hope to resaerch this one this weekend and make any necessary corrections early next week. I appreciate your constructive criticism regarding this issue. But you're not even in the same universe when it comes to exegeting the Greek text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maestroh (talk • contribs) 15:59, April 28, 2006 (UTC)
Echete pistin theou. 'OU' = Genitive case. Translated properly "Have God's faith" or "Have the faith of God" (although the word "of" is not in the Greek). Same case in John 1:36, nobody will seriously doubt that Jesus is God's lamb. Anyway, my point was that you can have a different opinion or interpretation but the Greek can be translated "God's faith". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.232.153 (talk) 18:06, April 28, 2006 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.228.192 (talk) 19:39, April 28, 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is the genitive case, but the citation you make hardly proves your point. You fail to address whether or not it is the SUBJECTIVE or OBJECTIVE genitive - and why.
I'd be very interested in seeing you provide even one reputable Greek grammarian who renders it 'Have God's faith.' No, Charles Capps and Kenneth Copeland do not count since neither meets the standards of Greek scholarship.
Using the same logic, the Holy Spirit blasphemes in Matthew 12:30-31. But you wouldn't render it that way, would you? Context is determinative. The Greek CANNOT be translated as you say. Further, I would be very interested in why you fail to even address your false accusation that I claimed Hagin said it was the 'literal interpretation' when, of course, I did no such thing.
And again, what kind of god needs faith except one that is NOT omniscient - and thus by definition not the biblical God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.36.254 (talk) 21:27, April 28, 2006 (UTC)
First: Hagin, despite having no formal Greek training or seminary education, rendered the passage, "Have the God-kind of faith." That is his interpretation, not a literal translation of the Greek. So the whole text about "no formal training" etc. is irrelevant in this case.
No accusation here (from my side!). All I stated was that this article does not meet the standard of an encyclopedia article. It is not objective, it does not give the reader the full freedom to form his/her own opinion. You fail to give me the Greek word for "of" in the quoted passage (since "of God" is supposed to be "literal"). You start subtle "attacks" by talking about confession or Copeland etc. You keep on asking theological questions. This is a matter of how an article was written, not theology. A true encyclopedia article would list arguments from both sides. You fail to do so. I am sorry that you misunderstood me but you do not know how to write an objective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.232.68 (talk) 07:29, April 29, 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is his interpretation - and the fact that he had no training in the biblical languages certainly is relevant given the fact that he is interpreting a text he cannot read (since your own word is interpretation). However, in the interest of 'fairness,' I rewrote it.
How can the article not give the reader the full freedom to form his or her own opinion? Because if they know Hagin knows nothing about Greek they will likely reject his interpretation? You state that I fail to give you where 'of' occurs in the quoted passage yet you have also not told me whether the passage is an objective or subjective genitive. I pointed out to you WHY it is an objective genitive and cited Greek scholarship on the issue.
But let's take the issue of 'of.' I take it from Mounce on p. 44 since the bulk of seminaries use his work and he possesses a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. "Greek, however, does not have this construction and SO ALL GREEK CONSTRUCTIONS ARE IN THE FORM "OF..." "Laws of God" (nomoi tou theou) would never be tou theou's nomoi (in English, he is saying, laws of God would NOT be God's law). Here he is EXPLICITLY denying your interpretation of this passage. In English (as Mounce notes earlier on the pag), we note possession (which the genitive case denotes) with 's; not so in Greek. The 'of' comes from the word 'theou.' The fact it is in the genitive case makes it 'of God.' But the fact that it is an OBJECTIVE GENTIVE makes it IN God. Wallace even tells how to identify an objective genitive on page 117 of his book.
No 'of' is not in the sequence of words, but it doesn't need to be, either. Again, if you were consistent, you would have to say that I Cor. 14:2 says that people who speak in tongues speak unto A God - since there's no definite article denoting THE God (the anarthrous construct). Now, this is a BAD interpretation - but if one sticks to the way of interpreting and reading Greek that you are, it is the ONLY consistent methodology applied.
Regarding my objectivity, I find that an interesting allegation. I didn't say anything that was untrue, did I? However, I've rewritten the 'offending passage' in line with your complaints.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 04:35, April 30, 2006
Thank you. God bless you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.218.101 (talk) 06:31, April 30, 2006 (UTC) Note This entry was deleted by a subsequent contributor and was reinstated 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Reconsidering my opinion, I have removed this portion completely for the time being, questioning why it needs to be there. The plagiarism point is a legitimate issue; I question whether or not the 'God-kind of faith' needs to necessarily be here. After much prayer and consideration - and in no way wanting to be seeming a 'crusader' as opposed to a 'researcher,' I have removed it for the time being. I have also changed the title regarding plagiarism, and I have brought out some further facts regarding that particular issue.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at Maestroh This entry was deleted by Maestroh on August 17, 2006. According to talk page guidelines the entry was retrieved and instead stricken on 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Healed" but died in a coma

quote: Chuck continued to write false testimony - including one saying "Hagin rose up healed" when the FACT is that the man died in a coma in a hospital. Given all the man taught on healing, I'd say that's pretty significant.

comment: if he did die in a coma, wasn't it what happened some 65 years AFTER he rose up healed?

Rad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.50.216 (talk) 23:22, October 17, 2006 (UTC) (Not really "unsigned", however, this makes it possible to relate this entry to the page history)

Rad,
You were not here for the earlier discussions so there is no way you could know the context (just an observation, not a criticism of you).
Chuck claimed that Hagin 'rose up healed' AFTER he had been in the hospital in September 2003 in a coma for a bundle branch block that he suffered earlier in the week. (Note: My uncle works at Rhema and was there - this is how I know about it because we were corresponding on the phone during Hagin's last hospital stay.
It had nothing to do with his earlier healing. Chuck posted on the article that 'Hagin rose up healed' in September 2003 before he left the earth. The FACT is that he did not.
Maestroh —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, October 24, 2006
The translation of Mark 11:22 is not outside of historical Christianity, though the connotation offered is obviously under dispute. Check your commentaries on more "orthodox" and educated exegetes.
John Gill's "Expostion of the Entire Bible" - have faith in God; or "the faith of God", so the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions;
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - faith in God: or, the faith of God
Albert Barnes "Notes on the Bible" - Have faith in God - Literally, “Have the faith of God.”
Adam Clarke's "Commentary on the Bible" - Have faith in God - Εχετε πιϚιν θεου is a mere Hebraism: have the faith of God
Geneva Bible translation notes - Mar 11:22 - And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have (e) faith in God. (e) The faith of God is that assured faith and trust which we have in him.
We may not all agree, but let us all be loving, honest, and educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrobbin (talk • contribs) 01:55, November 10, 2006 (UTC)
The translation of Mark 11:22 is not outside of historical Christianity ('of God' is not; Hagin's INTERPRETATION OF THOSE WORDS IS - it presumes God is NOT omniscient), though the connotation offered is obviously under dispute. Check your commentaries on more "orthodox" and educated exegetes. (I look forward to what you write - my comments are in parenthesis)
John Gill's "Expostion of the Entire Bible" - have faith in God; or "the faith of God", so the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; (I will look this one up as I've never heard it before)(Gill also states - VERY EXPLICITLY - that this is 'faith of which God is the object.' Nowhere does Dr Gill even hint that Hagin's distortion of the passage is acceptable). (text in parentheses replaced 15:40, December 13, 2006 (UTC) by 199.184.196.139)
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - faith in God: or, the faith of God
Albert Barnes "Notes on the Bible" - Have faith in God - Literally, “Have the faith of God.” (I've read this one. claim. His commentary says nothing about God having faith despite his literal rendering. Is Barnes using 'of' God as in COMES FROM God (orthodox) or as God EXERCISES (heresy of denying God's omniscience)
Adam Clarke's "Commentary on the Bible" - Have faith in God - Εχετε πιϚιν θεου is a mere Hebraism: have the faith of God (You didn't quote ALL Clarke wrote on it, either: ", i.e. have strong faith or the strongest faith, for thus the Hebrews expressed the superlative degree; so the mountains of God, mean exceeding great mountains, the hail of God, exceeding great hail, etc." Given the chance to say, "God has faith," Clarke does not do so. He thus cannot be considered a witness in favor of Hagin).
Geneva Bible translation notes - Mar 11:22 - And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have (e) faith in God. (e) The faith of God is that assured faith and trust which we have in him. (Correct - trust that WE have in HIM; NOT THAT HE EXERCISES!!! This citation is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Hagin is teaching).
We may not all agree, but let us all be loving, honest, and educated
(I am; it is quite clear that I am rather educated as I was well aware of ALL the sources you cite save Gill. Your list seems to come from the same Word of Faith apologists online who have refused to debate me on this very issue - mostly because none has ever taken Greek. I leave you with the words of America's foremost Greek grammarian at present - he authored the text used in 70% of USA seminaries - Daniel Wallace on this issue: “I would also add that to see the pistis as subjective (in Mark 11:22) seems to go counter, as you noted, to virtually all exegesis of that text. It’s also counter to (virtually) all translations, including KJV (which is, incidentally, ambiguous at Romans 3:22, but not at Mark 11:22!, Luther’s, etc. When a particular group argues for a viewpoint that runs counter to all exegesis, finds no support in the history of the church, is hardly the most plausible in the context, is against all of biblical theology, and needs to be explained before it can even e comprehended, then it is obviously motivated by an agenda.”
(Stephen Paul Sullivan, ““Design And Evaluation Of A College Course On The False Doctrines And Practices Of The Word of Faith Movement,” August 2000).
Thank you.
199.91.36.254 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Maestroh

[edit] A plea to users participating on this talk page

Because some of you are both unfamiliar with how entries in a discussion must be formatted according to Wikipedia guidelines, and to assure clarity of reading, and because, despite the fact that the infobox at the top of the page has been added to explain how to go about submitting an entry, a considerable effort has to be put in by regular users such as I, in order to prevent this talk page from becoming a complete, unnavigable chaos: Please read and learn the guidelines at the top of this page for participating in a discussion!. Then others won't have to expend their efforts in order that you may participate in free axchange of ideas and opinions. __meco 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hagin's Teachings

Kennith E Hagin Kennith Hagin was a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. His life is well documented and his ministry succeeds him, by his son Kennith Hagin Jr., and is based in Tulsa Oklahoma. The emphasis of his ministry was on faith. He stated in his writing that he held nothing against anyone, who disagreed with him. Among his readers, Hagin remains a very popular and positive force. His writings center around what the Bible says.

Promises A popular saying the epitomizes what Hagin taught is "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Hagin believed in promises of God, found in the Bible. He has stated in his teachings that the Bible is a system of promises and rewards.

References Hagin did use material from others in some of his teachings. The word teaching needs to be emphasised here. As another person so poignantly stated, Hagin was publishing a message, not trying to win academic awards. He even stated that he was once given some material from a retiring pentecostal preacher and pastor to use as he would.

Full Life Kennith Hagin live a full life. He died past the age of 80, when he wasn't expected to live past being a teenager. At a young age he became a pastor, and then later traveled the country preaching and teaching on the promises of God and praying for the sick. He started a Bible training center to prepare people for ministry. Hagin wrote that as a young man, his desire was to find happiness in life and have a family -- by his own testimony, he was able to have all these things.

Today One of the great reason Hagin remains popular today is that people who are in need are looking for answers. Kennith Hagin taught on receiving the promises of God, as found in the Bible, through faith. His writing bring hope to millions of people.

BraDavWikipedia 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to see the relevance of the previous submission by BraDavWikipedia. I take this opportunity to re-emphasize the instruction provided at the top of this page: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.. Thus, entries should address a particular issue having bearing on the quality of the article. __meco 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional or unintentional plagiarism (or both)

One user, User:Dvreeland, has changed the wording of "Vreeland, too, believes Hagin to be guilty of deliberate plagiarism." to "Vreeland, too, believes Hagin unintentionally used the thoughts and ideas of Kenyon without properly attributing them to Kenyon.". I haven't read the full Vreeland text, however, in footnote 34 it reads:

"One theory to explain the “plagiarism” of Kenyon by Hagin is that it was an unintentional editorial oversight. Many of Hagin’s books are written by ghost writers who have transcribed the material from audio cassettes of Hagin’s sermons. During the early days of Rhema Bible Training Center, Hagin would read passages from Kenyon’s books. It is possible that those tapes entered the mix of tapes used by the ghost writers, who incorporated the Kenyon passages into Hagin’s books assuming that Hagin was preaching. There is not conclusive proof of this theory. This does not explain the plagiarism of Kenyon in Hagin’s articles in the Word of Faith as cited by McConnell. Furthermore, whether it is intentional or unintentional plagiarism it is still an error that Kenneth Hagin needs to correct."

If this is the only citation to support either position, it leaves me at a loss in deciding which is more accurate, that is, they could both be wrong. The second one is certainly wrong as is obvious from the above quotation, however, that doesn't mean the previous version was an accurate representation. I'll leave this edit for now, expecting other editors to give their take on this. __meco 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced eulogy

In a recent edit text was added that to me reads a little like a eulogy. Had it not been for the fact that it comes without attribution to a source I might accept it. As it stands I would rather it be removed. __meco 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed private opinion

Many would argue that plagiarism in Christian teaching, or 'informal borrowing', and plagiarism in secular books are two very different things. Christian teachers are "supposed" to be getting their inspiration from God, so how could it be considered plagiarism if those teachers are just relaying what they have received from God? God is the one being plagiarzed, but I don't think He minds.
Most Christian teaching does not, and probably should not, come from new ideas, but rather the same ideas and revelations that the Apostles of the Bible taught in their time. There are many similar, and even exact, ideas, words and phrases when you compare the writings of those in the Bible. If the Apostle Paul were still alive today he could sue 99% of the Christian teachers for plagiarism (Jesse Duplantis). That being said, Christian and secular writers alike should still note their sources, and Brother Hagin did that in his republished works.

The above was entered by 68.53.14.189, and although the thoughts presented are sound in my judgment they constitute original research. If some published source stating the exact same opinion can be produced it can clearly be presented in the article in the section dealing with the plagiarism controversy. __meco 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main article could be improved with additional explanation

Some of the comments in the article are of the type that I think need further explanation for an encyclopedia-type article, for example, the reference to gnostic heresies. I think many people who are of the general public, such as myself, have no idea what gnostic heresies are or why they would be a problem. An article directed at the general public should offer an explanation. The same thing is true for the authorities cited in the plagiarism references. Most of them are not household names and the article would benefit from an explanation of who they are and where they are coming from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.14.60.2 (talk) 02:48:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polemics removed

On the other hand, Matta’s claims may overlook several issues. First, the teaching in question was never in any way foundational to the “word of faith” movement, but was merely a tangent. Second, Christians generally understand that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, but that he laid aside his deity, “became poor,” and came as a mortal to die as redeemer (since God cannot die). As a human, Jesus had a human spirit. When Jesus hung on the cross and said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” this could be construed as the moment when all of mankind’s sins became imputed to him and the Father turned from him; thus his human spirit could be viewed as "dead" to the Father (who cannot tolerate any unrighteousness in His presence). Third, the “redeemed Redeemer” allegation ignores Hagin’s other teachings that although Jesus “became sin for us,” he himself “knew no sin” of his own and needed no redeemer. Fourth, Matta overlooks the fact that the primary thrust of Gnostic teachings, namely that the intercourse of spiritual beings allegedly produced Jesus as their spiritual offspring, bear not the slightest resemblance to any of Hagin’s teachings.

The above was inserted by User:RexLion in this edit. This appears to be User:RexLion polemicizing against Matta. As editors we are obviously not in a position to polemicize against opinions expressed by cited parties in our articles, so unless these opinions can be sourced from a reliable source they cannot be included in the article. __meco (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have just become aware of this discussion page and am learning my way around Wiki.
I'd like to question whether this section should be deleted. Webster's Encylopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines "Gnostic" as "a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual things, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead." I've read quickly through Irenaeus' "Against Heresies". He called heresy the Gnostic teaching that a group of otherwise undocumented spirit beings sprang from the Creator. One of them, Sophia, allegedly gave birth to the spirit of Jesus. The Gnostics were claiming to know of these otherwise unknown and unwritten-about "facts" through special knowledge. But Hagin taught nothing of this kind. He taught that Jesus was God incarnate, part of the trinitarian Godhead. So for my statement that "the primary thrust of Gnostic teachings... bear not the slightest resemblance to Hagin's teachings" would have Irenaeus' work as evidence. Matta cannot be regarded as a reliable, quotable authority when her source, "Against Heresies," so plainly does not support her arguments.
Hagin did not claim to have "special knowledge" that overrode the Bible, either. He often stated that he was human and could "miss it," and that anything he taught should be checked out in the Bible before being accepted... if there was a contradiction then the Bible was right and he was wrong, he said.
As for my sentence about the "Redeemed Redeemer" issue, no one will ever find that phrase in any of Hagin's materials. He never, ever taught that Jesus Himself needed a redeemer. But in Hagin's book, "Redeemed From Poverty, Sickness, and Spiritual Death," page 28, he teaches (as I stated in the subsequently deleted portion) that Jesus "had no death in Him... He didn't have the spiritual nature of death--the devil--in Him...He took upon Himself our sin nature, the nature of spiritual death, that we might have eternal life."
I'd also like to point out that the following sentence is irrelevant to the issue of heresy: "Matta asserts that Kenyon's word of faith movement has basically taken over the pentecostal churches and Christian television."
All in all, after reflection I think it would be better to delete the section rather than to merely reinstate any of my (deleted) addendum. --RexLion Mike (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Without entering into the material discussion I simply must point out that any judgment on Matta's validity or lack thereof in her assertions must come from another external authority cited in a reliable source. Our opinion that she does not make sense is not applicable for removing her when she has been deemed authoritative enough to be published in a reliable source. __meco (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I am quick-failing this article because it doesn't have any sources.
At first sight i see many other problems;

  • the lead doesn't summarise the whole article (see WP:LEAD)
  • listing all of his books is really necessary? you should try and do a selection ( see WP:EMBED, lists within an article are highly discouraged)
  • i would recommend separating his personal life and his preching, in two different sections
  • the "Claimed he was healed" and the "Healed But Still Sick?" sections should be merged

There are many, many other problems, but the most important, and the reason why i am failing the article is that it seems to be 99% original research. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and What is a Good Article? before renominating. Thanks for your work so far. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of RBTC

This was one of the worst merges, into one of the most poorly-sourced BLP articles, that I've ever witnessed at WP. The original RBTC page simply needed additional citations, and would have been an excellent article; this article fails on so many levels, it's not even funny. Blech. --98.18.130.171 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, the article history for the RHEMA Bible Training Center article hasn't been deleted, so perhaps someone will do the work you mention. __meco (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goodwin text

User:Brother Mel had inserted information which he has apparently himself researched on the influence on Hagin by Rev. and Mrs. J.R. Goodwin in this edit. This was subsequently removed in another edit citing "uncited/original research". This is appropriate as the text obviously infringes on Wikipedia's guidelines with respect to insertion original research. The text appears quite relevant, though, so I place it here and hopefully it can be added at a later time if external citation by reliable sources can be procured.

Rev. Mel C. Montgomery, a researcher of Hagin's early years has written, "Critics make the case that Hagin was strongly influenced by the writings of E.W. Kenyon. Indeed he was, but only after he had been healed and had ministered on the subject of faith for several years. It was at an early point in his ministry--not at the very beginning--that Brother Hagin appears to have merged Kenyon's teachings with his own. It is clear that the teachings of Kenyon--whom Hagin never met--eventually influenced Hagin's developing "Faith Message." However, the larger and more interesting story is of the influence in Hagin's life before, during, and for years after Hagin read Kenyon's work. That influence was his life-long friendship and ministry relationship with Rev. and Mrs. J.R. Goodwin whom he met in 1938. I heard Brother Hagin say at a minister's meeting I attended in 1991 the following: 'For the first 40 years of my ministry, whenever God would give me a major vision or revelation, I would not fully teach it and preach it until I had shared it with the Goodwins and asked them to judge it and correct me if they thought I needed it.' Kenneth Hagin submitted to the Goodwins' instruction and supervision for the first 40 years of his ministry. Although the Goodwins did not accept Kenyon's unique interpretations and teachings, and neither did most Pentecostal leaders of the time of which I am aware, Mom and Dad Goodwin did not let this disagreement drive Hagin and them apart . . . Kenneth Hagin Jr., has e-mailed me the following comment: 'You are so correct. Dad and Papa and Mama Goodwin were very close friends. Dad spoke at Papa Goodwin’s funeral and in her last years Mama Goodwin was a member of my church and I had the priviledge of speaking at her funeral.'"--From "J.R. Goodwin and Kenneth Hagin," by Mel C. Montgomery, at www.brothermel.com/jrgoodwinandkennethhagin.aspx.

__meco (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)