wolf in sheeps clothing

[stafy]

Hello to all in worthy community

I am new to the worthy community and would like to say hello in Jesus name.

I would like to ask any one in the worthy community who would be able to

help me in restoring my faith. to begin with, last year I was watching a ministry

program of Pastor don stewart of phonix arizona about his handkerchief of healing.

at the time I wasn't in strong faith, hardly read the bible, say prayers once in awhile.

I decided to try and see if this healing could help me, so I send in a request for the

handkerchief in lest then 3 weeks I receive the handkerchief and follow the instructions

as to begin the healing process. 10 minutes later something came over me that was so

strong that it made me cry like I had never cry before since I was a child, my cry laste

almost 20 minutes and the feeling lasted up until the next day. the feeling is like some

thing has been lifted off of me and I felt peace, can't exactly descripe it because never

felt anything like it before. after the experience I began to read the bible (all day) and

praying(all day) and my family notice the changes in me. 2 weeks later I came across

an article about pastor stewart that just shot down my faith. now I look at him as one

one of the wolves that Jesus warn his disicples about in sheeps clothing. now today I struggle

to try and keep my faith, I am loseing because of the situation in my life asking god for

help. I belive now that I have lost it.

ok. we have all had our say, know, how about we get back on track to'bnrr' and his original question. could someone please offer 'bnrr' some real advice. I don't want to be the big shot here.

[Marnie]

ok. we have all had our say, know, how about we get back on track to'bnrr' and his original question. could someone please offer 'bnrr' some real advice. I don't want to be the big shot here.

Well, by all means. Be the big shot here. lol oh brother....

[Leonard]

The cloth does nothing. I honestly had no Idea anyone thought i was saying a cloth healed anyone. I am quite aware that is untrue. Just like with the Cloths that touched Paul, and Elisha's bones, the anointing of the Holy Spirit can remain on tangible items and be transferred through them. The Holy Spirit has the power, not the item. The credit must be given t the Holy Spirit and not the item. worship of the item is idolatry. Giving credit to the item is idolatry. It is quite fair to say that non living items can contain remnants of God's annointing. This is shown in at least two places in scripture.

Then why use them at all?? We all know you know the cloth means nothing, so why use one, man? And, brother, you have completely lost me...people are anointed, things are what they are: things.

In another of your posts, you seem to equate healing cloths with the laying on of hands. I tried to address this earlier. We have many references in Scripture saying we are to do this--laying on hands. The same can also be said of anointing the sick with oil. The same cannot be said of cloths! Honestly, I am just not getting why you feel it is necessary. Let me ask you this: do you also believe in things like the rosary, holy water and the like? Again, I am not trying to make fun of you; I generally enjoy your posts, but I am trying, desperately it seems, to understand you in this one issue.

I do not employ a rosary of Holy water. Why? There is no scriptural precedent set for their use. Had Paul, Peter, James, etc. poured holy water on people for a specific purpose, I would pour it on them for that same purpose.

Brother, I yield to your superior spirituality; obviously you are seeing something in the Bible I have missed. Kudos. You have not changed my mind one iota, but you are impossible to debate. As our Lord advised, I so do. I brush the sand from my sandals and salute you.

I miss Forrestkc. I cannot believe I said that!

Marnie? Are you OK? You ''brush the sand from your sandals" against this Brother over such a minor argument? How could you ever say such a thing? This is quite unlike you, Sister. Take a moment and consider what you are doing, my Daughter. That is a horrible thing to say..........

[Leonard]

By the way, I would also still like a link to that article, and enjoin all to remember that they do not know Don Stewart. He is really a great guy.

[Marnie]

The cloth does nothing. I honestly had no Idea anyone thought i was saying a cloth healed anyone. I am quite aware that is untrue. Just like with the Cloths that touched Paul, and Elisha's bones, the anointing of the Holy Spirit can remain on tangible items and be transferred through them. The Holy Spirit has the power, not the item. The credit must be given t the Holy Spirit and not the item. worship of the item is idolatry. Giving credit to the item is idolatry. It is quite fair to say that non living items can contain remnants of God's annointing. This is shown in at least two places in scripture.

Then why use them at all?? We all know you know the cloth means nothing, so why use one, man? And, brother, you have completely lost me...people are anointed, things are what they are: things.

In another of your posts, you seem to equate healing cloths with the laying on of hands. I tried to address this earlier. We have many references in Scripture saying we are to do this--laying on hands. The same can also be said of anointing the sick with oil. The same cannot be said of cloths! Honestly, I am just not getting why you feel it is necessary. Let me ask you this: do you also believe in things like the rosary, holy water and the like? Again, I am not trying to make fun of you; I generally enjoy your posts, but I am trying, desperately it seems, to understand you in this one issue.

I do not employ a rosary of Holy water. Why? There is no scriptural precedent set for their use. Had Paul, Peter, James, etc. poured holy water on people for a specific purpose, I would pour it on them for that same purpose.

Brother, I yield to your superior spirituality; obviously you are seeing something in the Bible I have missed. Kudos. You have not changed my mind one iota, but you are impossible to debate. As our Lord advised, I so do. I brush the sand from my sandals and salute you.

I miss Forrestkc. I cannot believe I said that!

Marnie? Are you OK? You ''brush the sand from your sandals" against this Brother over such a minor argument? How could you ever say such a thing? This is quite unlike you, Sister. Take a moment and consider what you are doing, my Daughter. That is a horrible thing to say..........

Yeah, I had a horrid headache when I wrote that.

However, sometimes a "minor discussion;" I wouldn't call it an argument, can cause a fellow believer confusion where there should be none. When the preponderance of Biblical evidence and theological opinion goes one way and a couple of people (with all due respect, my friend) swerve in the other direction, I would call that undue confusion. A minor point can lead to a question of faith in some people's minds. Not everybody is as firm in their beliefs as you and I are, Leonard. I can respect what you wrote but disagree strongly with you and not have my faith shaken.

That's all.

[Marnie]

Marnie, the problem with your above opinion is that neither the proponderance of Biblical evidence nor the majority of church opinion is on your side. Most Catholics, and virtually all pentecostals believe in prayer cloths of some type. Across the entire globe, these two factions are more than a majority of believers. As previously stated the practice was established in the early church and recorded in Acts. Furthermore, you made absolutely no effort to explain Elisha's bones. Simply making a statement enough times, worded enough different ways, does not make the statement become fact. I honestly have not seen one pertinant verse from you "proponderance of Biblical evidence" that disputes prayer cloths. The important thing is the truth. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." People do not need protected from the truth, even though the truth may seem strange in their minds at first. Even though the truth may cause confusion, it must be known.

I really am interested to know your take on Elisha's bones.

Okay, you asked for it. Don't say I didn't warn you.

1. Prayer Handkerchiefs.

Historians have traced these handkerchiefs back well into the early part of the nineteenth century. The early Mormons used healing handkerchiefs. Historian Michael Quinn writes that a group of people asked Joseph Smith to come heal them. Smith couldn't go but he pulled a red silk handkerchief out of his pocket and he said to one of his evangelists, "You go and take my handkerchief." And the evangelist took the handkerchief and prayed and the people were healed. This was no isolated incident-it happened frequently among Mormons. I think 1839 is the first story that emerges. Later on-towards the 1880s-Mormon leaders became embarrassed about what they saw as a folk magical practice and it began to fade out. But then holiness evangelists and later Pentecostals began traveling around and using handkerchiefs as well. So the healing handkerchiefs are there from the beginning of Pentecostal history and they are traceable long before that.

There are strong parallels if not continuities between Pentecostals and Mormons as well as Seventh Day Adventists, particularly in regards to healing practices. I imagine that many Pentecostals aren't aware of that or don't want to see such continuities. Or they can say, "Well, of course, it's in the Bible, so all kinds of cultists can use this as well as true Christians." I suspect that they would not be thrilled with that parallel, but I think further historical investigation such as Grant Wacker and others are doing will begin to show some historical continuity between these groups at the end of the nineteenth century.

The main scriptural justification is from Acts 19:11-12: "And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick and diseases left him and the evil spirits came out of him." Mormons as well as Pentecostals commonly invoke this passage to show how these healing cloths were used by Paul.

The use of prayer cloths or handkerchiefs has been pervasive throughout the twentieth century in Pentecostal culture. You see it declining, predictably enough as in the Mormon case, when these groups began to institutionalize and formalize authority. The handkerchiefs remain important but the function changes. In the earlier years, in the teens and twenties, before Pentecostalism was institutionalized, a lot of the handkerchiefs went by mail; believers would write in to Pentecostal periodicals and ask for handkerchiefs. Sending the handkerchiefs by mail enabled the formation of a community that could transcend geographical boundaries. When the Pentecostals began settling in churches, you read less about people writing away to evangelists for handkerchiefs and more use of them within particular churches. There are exceptions to that, of course. Oral Roberts is still famous for using prayer cloths, and people to this day write letters to Oral Roberts Ministries looking for prayer cloths that he's prayed over. And other famous evangelists also use the prayer cloths-Robert Tilton, for example. But generally the function has changed somewhat as the Pentecostal churches have become institutionalized.

There is but one verse of Scripture concerning the use of a prayer cloth, the oft cited reference in Acts. The entire thrust of my argument against their use today is twofold. (1) With one single solitary reference, you would have to be a Houdini to discern a usable theology or doctrine for their continued use. Contrary to what you wrote, there is no strong evidence that this was a routine practice in the early Church. Not one single time do we read of Peter or Paul or any of the early Church Fathers using them as a standard practice. I have already covered this in an earlier post. You cannot and should not compare prayer cloths to the laying on of hands, which is blatantly encouraged and practiced throughout the NT. (2) The use of prayer cloths forms part of the "material devotion" of religion, that is, the heretical belief that somehow a piece of cloth or a piece of wood somehow becomes endued with supernatural power because somebody prayed over it or even anointed it oil. Such a notion is bizarre to say the least and falls under the heading of "superstitious" religious beliefs. The fact that so many believers actually hold to this is evidence that, once again, those behind the pulpits across the land have a lot of work to do. It is sad in the extreme that so many sincere, well meaning and intentioned believers get so caught up in such a minor practice. Many things were done in the NT that we do not do today. Do you use crackers or unleavened bread in Communion? Do you use wine or Welch's grape juice? If we are looking for theology and doctrine in a practice, you had better do everything the early Church did, including living communally.

2. Elisha's Bones

I am not sure why you bring this up, but you did so I will deal with it. 2 Kings 13:20-21 records the very last miracle of G-d's most faithful prophet. The amazing thing is this miracle took place after his death. This miracle had a purpose, as I believe all miracles did in both the OT and NT. Rarely, if ever, did G-d heal anybody because He liked them. I would say that each and every time our Lord healed the sick, and indeed I think this applies also to the use of the prayer cloths, it was to teach a lesson to the onlookers or to provide a sign. This is, I believe the purpose behind the miracle of Elisha's bones. It seems obvious to me that if you compare this event with the account that immediately precedes it, this miracle of the healing bones is a sign from G-d to Jehoash and all Israel: That G-d is a G-d of the living, not the dead. The entire miracle can also be seen as a a corroborative sign that what Elisha had prophesied wold certainly come to pass.

Conclusion

My take on both of these incidents is simply this: I believe that in both of these incidents, the healing that came from Elisha's bones and the healing the came from the cloth actually happened. I believe in a G-d of the miraculous. I believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture. I do not believe, however, that believers today should seek signs and miracles through the use of cloths or a saint's bones or some sort of material aid. I believe both these incidents occurred in isolation; that is, they were one-of-a-kind miracles for a specific purpose at a specific time. Believers today have no need for prayer cloths. I believe in the laying on of hands because we have Biblical and extra Biblical evidence that this was an ongoing practice in the early Church for many reasons. I believe in anointing the sick with oil because we have James' admonition to do so. We are blessed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. We have no need for talismans or icons to access the abundant healing power of G-d.

[Marnie]

Marnie, there was this period of time called the dark ages when almost all practices of the church stopped. So the fact that healing cloths all but died out during the dark ages is quite logical. Thus, A gap of no recorded history. The fact a cult leader copied a scriptural practice, in no way invalidates the scriptural practice.

The anointing of the Holy Spirit was still present on Elisha's bones. That is simple and logical. When the dead man contacted this anointing, it was released and a miracle occurred.

(1) I think we are actually in agreement, more or less, with Elisha. I have already stated I believe the miracle happened. We may quibble as to the "why" of this particular miracle; I tend to be a Biblical literalist. When I read of an incident in Scripture, I immediately look for the context of it. I wonder why you raised it, though. Do you see a connection between Elisha's bones and the healing cloth? I personally don't. Again, this miracle was intended to show something and to demonstrate G-d's awesome power. He could have used anything, but He chose to use the prophet's bones for maximum impact. The point of the story is not so much bones, but the miracle itself and the attendant impact.

(2) I am familiar with the Dark Ages. As I am familiar with Church history, in particular the history of religious movements, especially the Pentecostal and charismatic movements. You are not the only person who knows history. I will state this one last time as simply as I can. Just because you read of something happening in Scripture one time, does not mean you can build an entire doctrine around it. This is how things like snake handling get into the Church; people obsessing on a very minor point of Scripture and building a whole doctrine where none existed. I do not in any way, shape or form discount the historicity of the account in Acts. I question its use in the church today, that's all.

[Marnie]

Okay, I just re-read something.

Is the whole hypothesis of your argument that when someone--a preacher or evangelist--prays over a cloth, then sends that cloth to you, that somehow in the economy of G-d an "anointing" had passed from the individual into the cloth? Then, when a person holds onto the cloth, that "anointing" passes from the cloth into the person holding it?

Is this your general idea?

[Yahsway]

Anyone want a prayer cloth from Peter Popoff? Just had to go there, he he

[Floatingaxe]

Okay, I just re-read something.

Is the whole hypothesis of your argument that when someone--a preacher or evangelist--prays over a cloth, then sends that cloth to you, that somehow in the economy of G-d an "anointing" had passed from the individual into the cloth? Then, when a person holds onto the cloth, that "anointing" passes from the cloth into the person holding it?

Is this your general idea?

Pretty much. The cloth is a substitute for the physical laying on of hands. Not as good as laying on of hands. Not the ideal practice. Not a replacement for laying on of hands, but a substitute for laying on of hands if it is impossible to physically lay hands on for whatever the reason may be.

The only reason I even brought up Elisha's bones is that it is a second biblical reference to objects holding and passing Holy Spirit annointing.

Just as demons can dwell in, linger on, and possess objects; the Holy Spirit can allow remnants of His power to remain on objects.

Yes, I agree...a substitute for laying on of hands, where it would be impossible to do that. It wouldn't be a good thing to do regularly as it would lend to some weaker in faith to commit idolatry, but it has its place on rare occasions...really rare and ideal conditions, with anointed people.