Andrew Wommack & Resurrections

[NorrinRadd]

Ok, so I know Wommack is a Hyper-Faith (and maybe Hyper-Grace) kinda guy. Not concerned about those issues at this time.

I'm interested in his claims of resurrections in and around his ministry, especially the claimed resurrection of his son after five hours. I have so far not found anything about them other than his (or his ministry's) own claims -- nothing either confirming or disproving.

Does anyone have info on this?

FTR, I do not rule out such things automatically, especially since such a respected scholar as Craig Keener affirms resurrections in his own family.

[KingsGambit]

This is one issue where I feel a disconnect between what we're "supposed" to do and what we actually do. I get the impression from the New Testament and the early church that we shouldn't be so skeptical - 1 Thessalonians 5:20 says not to scoff at prophecies, and the Didache even suggests that questioning a prophet is the unforgivable sin. Yet in practical terms, it seems difficult to ignore that most people who claim miracles or prophetic utterances tend to be heterodox (especially with prosperity doctrine) or likely mentally ill (there was one guy who came onto the TWeb shoutbox speaking weird, nearly incoherent English claiming that God had transported him twenty miles at once. I honestly didn't believe him).

I honestly believe Keener, though. Craig Blomberg reported a story about an elderly woman in his church who was audibly told to grab a cell phone shortly before falling on ice, and I don't see a reason not to believe him, either. Wommack? The jury is out.

[Sparko]

I don't think resurrections still happen today. I believe God can heal people miraculously, but I don't think he brings them back from the dead any more. I think that was a special thing that happened during the time of Jesus to show he was the Messiah. And once for Paul with the kid who fell out of the window and that one could even be a case of mistaken death.

[Adrift]

I don't think resurrections still happen today. I believe God can heal people miraculously, but I don't think he brings them back from the dead any more. I think that was a special thing that happened during the time of Jesus to show he was the Messiah. And once for Paul with the kid who fell out of the window and that one could even be a case of mistaken death.

Source: Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 31)

For they {heretics/Gnostics}

© Copyright Original Source

(Red note and underline mine)

[Sparko]

Source: Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 31)

For they {heretics/Gnostics}

© Copyright Original Source

(Red note and underline mine)

I forgot about Tabitha.

My belief is that there was a special time for such miracles back when they were needed to help get the Church started.

[NorrinRadd]

For those interested, on this page Keener briefly shares a couple of resurrection anecdotes, including his sister-in-law. (He was not involved in "performing" -- for lack of a better word -- the raisings.)

[NorrinRadd]

This is one issue where I feel a disconnect between what we're "supposed" to do and what we actually do. I get the impression from the New Testament and the early church that we shouldn't be so skeptical - 1 Thessalonians 5:20 says not to scoff at prophecies, and the Didache even suggests that questioning a prophet is the unforgivable sin. Yet in practical terms, it seems difficult to ignore that most people who claim miracles or prophetic utterances tend to be heterodox (especially with prosperity doctrine) or likely mentally ill (there was one guy who came onto the TWeb shoutbox speaking weird, nearly incoherent English claiming that God had transported him twenty miles at once. I honestly didn't believe him).

I honestly believe Keener, though. Craig Blomberg reported a story about an elderly woman in his church who was audibly told to grab a cell phone shortly before falling on ice, and I don't see a reason not to believe him, either. Wommack? The jury is out.

I share a lot of your misgivings.

Regarding 1 Thes. 5:20 -- WADR to the Didache, I believe the next verse (5:21) directly instructs that we *should* "test" prophecies, which is in practical terms equivalent to "questioning" prophets. 1 Cor. 14:29 STM to indicate the same thing, as does the fact that "distinguishing" or "discerning" of spirits (a form of the same verb used in 14:29) appears next to "prophecy" in 12:10. It always annoyed me when "Faith" preachers would try to pull the "Touch not the LORD's anointed, and do His prophets no harm" and "Believe in His prophets and you will prosper" cards.

As for what we're "supposed" to do vs. what we "actually" do -- I often think of Acts 12. Peter is in jail. The church was "earnestly" praying for him. An angel of the Lord released Peter in the night. Peter went to a home where many were gathered in prayer, and knocked on the door. Rhoda the servant girl answered the knock, was so overjoyed that she LEFT HIM THERE AND DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR, and went to tell the others. They basically said, "Yeah, and what are YOU smoking?" When they finally went to the door and saw she was right, they were astonished. They were praying, but apparently had no expectation that God would actually do something, at least not anything dramatic.

I know I'm usually like that today. And I'm pretty sure if God *did* do something dramatic, like raise a dead person, it would scare me as much as please me.

[Adrift]

I think we simply live in a post-modern scientistic society that makes it hard for us to accept the miraculous, and so, like Jesus in his hometown, where there is a lack of faith we simply don't see it as often as we should. That's not to say that in cultures that are more accepting of the miraculous it isn't still astonishing to see/hear it take place. After all, it's still contrary to the norm, and it is still a display of power from on high, but I think certain Southern hemisphere societies can expect to see more of the miraculous because the simplicity of their faith and their standard of living is often at a place where they have nothing to lose by accepting that divine manifestations can happen in their community.

[Leonhard]

I think we simply live in a post-modern scientistic society that makes it hard for us to accept the miraculous, and so, like Jesus in his hometown, where there is a lack of faith we simply don't see it as often as we should. That's not to say that in cultures that are more accepting of the miraculous it isn't still astonishing to see/hear it take place. After all, it's still contrary to the norm, and it is still a display of power from on high, but I think certain Southern hemisphere societies can expect to see more of the miraculous because the simplicity of their faith and their standard of living is often at a place where they have nothing to lose by accepting that divine manifestations can happen in their community.

All claims of the miraculous should be handled on a case by case basis. There's no general rule of thumb we can apply against or for them, other than perhaps, at most, a common sense suggestion that the more extraordinary ones are very rare. There's plenty of reason to be at least a little skeptical, but there is also, in my mind, no reason to be outright dismissive.

In general when people claim they've seen an angel I believe them. Though, of course, once they start talking about what that angel said and it touches doctrinal stuff, I'll prefer the opinion of the Bible.

[Adrift]

All claims of the miraculous should be handled on a case by case basis. There's no general rule of thumb we can apply against or for them, other than perhaps, at most, a common sense suggestion that the more extraordinary ones are very rare. There's plenty of reason to be at least a little skeptical, but there is also, in my mind, no reason to be outright dismissive.

You'll find no disagreement from me on this.

In general when people claim they've seen an angel I believe them. Though, of course, once they start talking about what that angel said and it touches doctrinal stuff, I'll prefer the opinion of the Bible.

[KingsGambit]

I share a lot of your misgivings.

Regarding 1 Thes. 5:20 -- WADR to the Didache, I believe the next verse (5:21) directly instructs that we *should* "test" prophecies, which is in practical terms equivalent to "questioning" prophets. 1 Cor. 14:29 STM to indicate the same thing, as does the fact that "distinguishing" or "discerning" of spirits (a form of the same verb used in 14:29) appears next to "prophecy" in 12:10. It always annoyed me when "Faith" preachers would try to pull the "Touch not the LORD's anointed, and do His prophets no harm" and "Believe in His prophets and you will prosper" cards.

The Didache does not give a particularly coherent view on how to treat prophecies (or, to hear Roger Olson say it, it just outright contradicts itself on that point). I see that as evidence that even in the 1st/2nd century, believers were struggling with some of these same questions we are now. It seems that one of the major occasional problems there was itinerant prophets who were taking advantage of the generosity of churches. It's not too hard to draw certain parallels to today from that.

[NorrinRadd]

I guess my main concern is whether Wommack uses those resurrection anecdotes as support for his doctrines.

[KingsGambit]

I guess my main concern is whether Wommack uses those resurrection anecdotes as support for his doctrines.

If the anecdotes are accurate, I don't know if it would be fair to expect him to exclude them from consideration, though obviously it's also not necessarily reasonable to expect the rest of us to automatically believe him.

He's not a terrible exegete. His website contains a fair amount of New Testament verse-by-verse commentary.