Word Of Faith Movement: Is It Metaphyisical? (Part Three)

Word Of Faith Movement: Is It Metaphysical?

Part 3

By Troy J. Edwards

Christian Science, which, under the specious use of Christian terms, really eviscerates Christianity of its essential doctrines, making sin an illusion and its penalty a mortal dream; denying the atonement, and the true nature of Jesus Christ; and teaching men to look on sin, sickness, and death, as matters of wrong thinking rather than wrong being and doing.[1] – Frederick B. Meyer

F.B. Meyer was another among many evangelical ministers admired by Kenyon and whose teachings impacted Kenyon's life. It is highly unlikely with these evangelical influences that Kenyon would embrace the very system that his mentors abhorred.

In our further attempts to refute the foolish and ridiculous claims by some that the Word-Faith movement is an offshoot of the Metaphysical move that lead to Christian Science, we will compare the doctrines of Christian Science to those of the Faith teachers.

Although, Kenyon is not the PRIMARY influence on the current day faith movement, it is obvious that his teachings have had a major impact on most faith teachers. Since McConnell, Hangraaf, and others have attempted to use the "Kenyon-Connection" in their fruitless vendetta to prove that the Faith Movement is a metaphysical cult, we will rely heavily on Kenyon's writings to show these critics the error of their ways. From time to time we will make some references to the works of modern day faith teachers.

I will also rely heavily on Walter Martin's classic book, The Kingdom of The Cults (1985 edition), for my information on Christian Science and their beliefs. I will also rely somewhat on information derived from the Christian's Apologetics & Research Ministry website, an Apologetics website run by Matthew J. Slick.

1. The Trinity

Christian Science and other metaphysical cults deny the Trinity, or the Biblical concept that there are three individuals that are one God. Christian Science says, "The theory of three persons in One God (that is, a personal Trinity or Triunity) suggests polytheism..."[2]

On the other hand, Kenyon believed and absolutely endorsed the truth concerning the Triunity of the Godhead:

Everything in the description in the Bible of the Three called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, presents definitely and absolutely no more and no less than Three Persons in the Godhead.... In an absolute Threeness, each one is distinct from the other two; no one of the three could possibly be either of the other two; and no two of the three can exist without the third.

God is manifest as an absolute Threeness; yet, He is also an absolute Oneness. The Three are absolutely One. Each One is represented as God. That does not mean that each one is a part of God, but each one is God. Each one is the Whole of God. Personality is not divisible. God cannot be divided. God is Three in One. Each One of the Three is God, and each One is the Whole of God.[3]

If Kenyon supposedly embraced Metaphysics and incorporated them into his teaching, he sure missed it when it came to the Trinity. Kenyon's concept of the Trinity is just as "orthodox" as you will find in any good Christian church, be it Evangelical, Fundamental, Pentecostal, or Charismatic.

2. The Deity of Christ

According to Matthew Slick, we have an abundance of unorthodox statements from Ms. Eddy's book concerning the deity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Here are some of them:

Christ is the spiritual idea of sonship S&H 331:30-31
Jesus was not the Christ, S&H 333:3-15; 334:3
"Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared..." S&H 361:12-13
Jesus did not reflect the fullness of God, S&H 336:20-21[4]

Even Martin affirms that Christians Science holds to this devilish doctrine as he quotes from Eddy's book, Science And Health: "...Jesus as material manhood, was not Christ."[5]

We have shown the reader in Kenyon's statements concerning the Trinity that he did teach this concept and certainly saw Christ as God. Nevertheless, a direct quote from Kenyon that once again affirms this truth is necessary:

The heart cry of man for an Incarnation has been answered in Jesus. God was manifest in the flesh. God lived as a man among us and we know His nature. We find Him in Christ to be all that we want Him to be.[6]

Kenyon believed that Jesus Christ was God on while He was on earth and after He left the earth. Kenyon did not have a metaphysical view of Jesus Christ. Kenyon, like all of us, believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. His critics have had to go a long ways to come up with proof that this man of God was a heretic.

3. The Atonement

This is where Mrs. Eddy really went wild. She makes this statement, "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in His veins, as he went daily about his Father's business"[7]

This shows the true heretical nature of Eddy's teachings. Such teaching is far from the Bible. How anyone could equate such a damnable doctrine with the modern day Word-Faith movement truly amazes me. The Word of Faith movement honors the atonement and teaches that man's salvation is dependent upon this:

"From the fall of man until Jesus sat down at God's right hand, no man had ever approached God except over a bleeding sacrifice, through a divinely appointed priesthood, or by an angelica visitation or dream. On the ground of His High Priestly offering of His own blood, He perfected our redemption, He satisfied the claims of justice and made it possible for God to legally give man Eternal life, making him righteous, and giving him a standing as a Son.

"Jesus, as High Priest, carried His blood into the Holy of Holies, satisfying the claims of justice that were against natural man." -E.W. Kenyon from his book, THE BLOOD COVENANT

"We are not redeemed with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ."

"Through the blood of Jesus' cross, God has made peace, reconciling all things to Himself. God did it!" -Kenneth Hagin from his book, THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS.

"God, through the blood of Jesus, has so completely done away with the power of sin that you, as a born again believer, can live as if it never existed." -Kenneth Copeland from his devotional book, FROM FAITH TO FAITH.[8]

The faith teachers do not believe in a bloodless redemption. To them, the blood of Jesus holds a valuable place in the plan of God to redeem man. Kenyon himself spoke against the metaphysical cults view of atonement when he said: "By denying sin, they attempt to get rid of the need of the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ. By doing this, they deny the efficacy of His blood and of His vicarious suffering."

The metaphysicians say, "The sacrifice of Jesus was not sufficient to cleanse from sin," but Copeland states, " God, through the blood of Jesus, has so completely done away with the power of sin..." What a contrast in theologies.

4. The Virgin Birth

Christian Science has some very strange teachings concerning the virgin birth. Eddy says, "A portion of God could not enter man; neither could God's fullness be reflected by a single man, else God would be manifestly finite, lose the deific character, and become less than God."[9]

Far from teaching such tripe, Kenyon and the modern day faith teachers teach a virgin birth. They teach that Jesus Christ is fully God who was born of the virgin Mary. Let us read some statements by the accused himself, Kenyon:

This seed must be of one who is not a subject of Satan, and so this wonderful being must be conceived of the Holy Spirit, and the womb of the virgin is to be simply the receptacle of that Holy One until the day He is brought forth. (p. 147)

Here is a being with whom God performs a Miracle by taking Him out of the Godhead or from the Godhead in Heaven, and placing Him in the womb of a virgin to be united with flesh by a unique conception. (p. 148)[10]

Kenyon saw the virgin birth as something miraculous and supernatural. In his book, The Father and His Family, Kenyon gives us his interpretation of John 1:14:

Here we have the story told of the union of Deity and humanity: a child conceived in a virgin's womb by supernatural manifestations of the Creator of the human, because man, by his apostasy and awful sin, had necessitated a second miracle, greater than the miracle of creation, to encompass his Redemption from the power and guilt of his own transgressions.[11]

Now we can see that Kenyon believed in the virgin birth and the deity of Christ. Hard to believe that a man who shows this much orthodoxy in his teaching could be accused of the things he has been accused of.

5. God Is a Personal Being

Christian Science thinks of God as some great mind or abstract being. They see Him as a universal principle, a great mind, a power or source. They will say that God is love and misquote the Scripture (1 John 4:8). Nevertheless, the meaning that Christian Science gives to the phrase "God is love" is totally different from that of orthodox Christianity. Those who misinterpret the Scriptures do not think of God as a personal being but they think that "Love is God." True Christians do not think this way. We know that because God is so full of love and so strongly desires to express love, that we say He is love. It does not mean that "Love is God" as the metaphysical cults believe.

Kenyon by no means held to such a ridiculous concept. Kenyon believed in a personal God and not an abstract being, a universal mind, or some divine principle. As a matter of fact, Kenyon chided those who did declare such foolishness:

Hagel's philosophy of the non-existence of a personal God has formulated because he could not find God with his eyes, hear Him with his ears, nor contact Him with his other senses. He was driven by Sense Knowledge limitations to leave the world an orphan, without a Creator, without a Ruler, for he had denied God's existence. (p. 24)

They say God has no personality. They say that God is a great universal mind, without brains with which to function, for had He brains He would be a person. They call this impersonal Mind, "Love," "Goodness," "Perfection." You can see the absolute inability of Sense knowledge to find God by itself."(p. 25)[12]

So we can see that Kenyon taught us that there is a personal God in contrast to philosophers and metaphysicians.

6. The Existence of Satan, Sin Sickness and Evil

Mary Baker Eddy's philosophy on evil is expressed in these words: "All these vagaries are at variance with my system of metaphysics, which rests on God as One and All, and denies the actual existence of both matter and evil.... There was never a moment in which evil was real."[13]

Eddy's theology also shows how she feels about sin, the devil, and sickness: "DEVIL. Evil; a lie; error; neither corporeality nor mind; the opposite of Truth; a belief in sin, sickness, and death; animal magnetism or hypnotism; the lust of the flesh." Then she goes further to state that "Matter has no life, hence it has no real existence." Her implications are explained further when she says, "Any material evidence of death is false, for it contradicts the facts of spiritual being."[14]

Kenyon says, "There is no explanation for the intelligence and organization that is behind the power of sin, if there be no such a being as Satan. The prevalence, power, and malignity of sin compel us to look for a cause"[15]

Kenyon has stated in his writings that, "God is. Satan is. Sin is. But God has dealt with the sin problem in His Son."[16] Kenyon never embraced the doctrine of denial as taught in the metaphysical cults. Kenyon believed in physical and spiritual realities. This is probably the most important area to acknowledge when differentiating between Kenyon's teachings and those of the Metaphysical cults. Kenyon realized that sin, Satan, and evil existed. However, unlike many of His critics, Kenyon believed that Jesus purchased the victory for us that we may overcome in all of Satan's devices.

The same is true concerning sickness. Kenyon certainly taught that we must acknowledge and confess the promises of God concerning divine healing, and that we must place God's Word above the ailments in the body. However, Kenyon never denied the reality of sickness:

...sin and disease are twins, born of Spiritual Death. They are both the work of Satan. Sin is a disease of the spirit; sickness, as we see it, is a disease of the physical body[17]

7. Eternal Salvation of man

Eddy taught the universal salvation of man: "Man as God's idea is already saved with an everlasting salvation." She also taught that, "One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin."[18] Kenyon's theology concerning salvation was far different from that of Eddy's:

Repentance and confession of sin have no value unless one acts upon the Word and takes Christ as his Savior. God gave Jesus to the world as a Savior. He has not taken the gift back. Jesus still belongs to the sinner. He is God's gift to a lost soul. All that lost soul needs to do is to acknowledge the gift, thank the giver, and salvation is his.[19]

Kenyon believed that salvation was conditional. Man had to receive the sacrifice that Christ wrought on his behalf before he could receive eternal life. Kenyon certainly did not accept the metaphysical or the universalist teaching of salvation. In his course on Evangelism, Kenyon taught potential soulwinners how to minister to sinners who felt that they were guaranteed heaven without accepting Christ:

When a man becomes a child of God, Heaven becomes his home as logically and naturally as Hell becomes the home of the child of Satan. Show that God has done all that He can to save a man from Hell. He cannot however, go beyond man's will. A man wills to remain alienated from God, or he wills to become a child of God.[20]

The above statement may not satisfy the Calvinist who believes that the 5-Point Calvinist system is the only standard of orthodoxy for the church, nevertheless, it will most certainly vindicate Kenyon from the false charges of having incorporated universalistic teachings in his theology. One can accuse him of being an Arminian, but one cannot accuse him of being a universalist.

8. The Reality of hell

Let's start with a quote from Mary Baker Eddy: "The olden opinion that hell is fire and brimstone, has yielded somewhat to the metaphysical fact that suffering is a thing of mortal mind instead of body: so, in place of material flames and odor, mental anguish is generally accepted as the penalty for sin"[21]

It's obvious that Eddy did not believe in a literal Hell. In contrast, Kenyon taught his personal workers how to deal with those who did not believe in a literal hell:

Others who entertain false hopes are those who say, "A God of love would not send anyone to hell." We can meet this by explaining that we know nothing of God's love except through the Bible, and that the Bible teaches plainly the existence of Heaven and Hell. The whole message of Redemption, the reason for Christ's coming, centers in the fact that Hell became the eternal home of man through Adam's treason.[22]

Teaching from the 16^th chapter of Luke, Kenyon makes this statement:

Whether we want to insist that this is purely figurative language or not, is beside the question. The fact is that Jesus declared that this man was in torment in the flames. If the flame was simply a burning conscience, then give me literal fire.[23]

Kenyon believed in a literal Hell with literal flames in contrast to the DENIAL theology prevalent within the Metaphysical cults. So far, I am quite amazed and perplexed as to how his critics ever came to the conclusion that this man of God mixed metaphysics into his teaching. So far, there seems to be no trace of it. Nonetheless, I can assure the reader that this is not enough to convince the critic. Yet, we will keep trying.

9. The Death and Resurrection of Christ

Eddy states the following: "His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the sepulcher, whereas he was alive, demonstrating within the narrow tomb the power of Spirit to overrule mortal, material sense."[24] No denying that this is a doctrine of demons. Kenyon, on the other hand, believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The resurrection of Jesus was the greatest event that ever took place, either in the sense realm or in the spirit realm. Satan is defeated... [25]

We all remember that beautiful scene that took place after the resurrection of the Master.[26]

Kenyon believed in the death and the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. He did not accuse God of lying as Eddy did. He did not accuse Jesus of hiding out in the tomb. Kenyon, and the many Word-Faith preachers after him claimed a literal death, literal burial, and a literal resurrection.

10. The Bible

Although Eddy claimed that the Bible was her only authority, but believed that it was full of textual errors, its inspiration is questionable, and that it is made up of metaphors, allegories, myths and fables. Eddy taught that the Bible could not be interpreted without he "Keys to Science and Health."[27] Kenyon, in contrast, believed strongly in the purity and integrity of the Bible as God's Word:

That revelation is His Word, the Bible. Words can give no adequate estimation of the place the Bible holds in Redemption and the life of God's child. It is our aim in these lessons to show forth the utter sacredness of the Word to the Father, and the vital place it holds in the life of every Christian... as fulfilled today.[28]

The word of God alone can bring conviction and penetrate the spiritual darkness that the unsaved man is living in. It is not our words. It is God's Word that grips the heart and convinces a man of his need of Christ.[29]

Kenyon believed in God's Word and did not believe that it needed a supplemental guide such as Eddy's Keys to Science and Health. Kenyon, like many other good Bible teachers wrote books to teach the insights God gave him, but by no means did he exalt his books as the only way to get insight into God's Word.

11. Kenyon's Alleged Gnostic Influences

Among the many accusations aimed at Kenyon and the Faith movement (as a result of the so called "Kenyon connection") is that these men and women teach a form of "Gnosticism." This is due to Kenyon's emphasis on "Two Kinds of Knowledge" and the modern Faith Teachers emphasis on "revelation knowledge." Before we refute these ridiculous accusations, we need to define "gnosticism:"

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Savior.[30]

This is so far from what Kenyon and the Faith teachers teach that it amazes me that such an accusation could ever have been made. When Peter answered Jesus in telling him that he knew that He was the Christ, Jesus told him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 16:17). Moses told the Israelites, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29).

Most of the Faith teachers usually teach from Ephesians 1:17, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Does this, and the other Scriptures, affirm revelation knowledge? It is simply God revealing His Word to us. There is a place for head knowledge. No Faith teacher has taught anyone to never use their head. However, when it comes to the things of God, head knowledge is insufficient. Most Bible study attempts without reliance upon the Spirit of God are usually nothing more than cold intellectualism since, "... he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26).

These comments by Kenyon should help the reader to understand what Kenyon meant by his teaching on "Two Kinds of Knowledge:"

...there is another kind of knowledge that has come to us through the Revelation called the Bible. This is Revelation Knowledge. It brings us in contact with the creator. It explains the "Why" of creation, the Reason for Man, the Nature of Man, and the ultimate goal of Man. It deals with things that the Senses cannot discover or know without assistance from this Revelation Knowledge. The unhappy fact is that Sense Knowledge has gained the supremacy in the Church. The church is a spiritual organization, a spiritual body, to be governed through the spirit instead of through the senses.

When Sense Knowledge gained the ascendancy in the Church and the fountain of the Church, the theological school, the Church ceased to be a spiritual body and simply became a body of men governed by Sense Knowledge. You can see why Sense Knowledge, which cannot understand spiritual things, will deny miracles, will deny answers to prayer, and will deny the deity of Jesus, discrediting His Resurrection and miracles. It is to be expected that sense knowledge will deny the miraculous, because it cannot explain it or understand it.[31]

From reading Kenyon's statements we can see why he and the Faith Teachers after him have had such severe persecution. The majority of persecution has come from an intellectual branch of the church. Statements that are typical to Kenyon's are a threat to the intellectual theology that seems to be making it's way back into the church. People are once again allowing Scholarly scientific methods of interpreting the Bible to replace reliance upon the Spirit of God.

There is nothing wrong with taking a scientific approach to studying the Bible, however, when we embrace a form of cessationism that states that the Holy Spirit will no longer "teach us all things" and give us fresh insight into the written Word, we have replaced Him, most of the time, without realizing it. It has almost come to the point where the common man is no longer qualified to read the Bible and expound upon it. It seems to me that if a person has not graduated from seminary or one of our Bible colleges then they are looked upon as disqualified to know the Bible.

Kenyon and the Faith teachers have gone against the traditional theological systems that killed and turned to reliance upon the Holy Spirit who gives life to the Word and reveals His Word to our inward man.

In contrast, the Gnostics did not rely upon the Spirit of God to reveal the Word of God to them. They felt that they could attain to a type of knowledge that would save them. Kenyon and the Faith teachers relied upon the Bible and the Holy Spirit. They relied upon God to reveal His Word to them and encouraged others to get a revelation of His Word.

12. Christian Science, Word of Faith, and Doctors

In the April 1995 edition of the Atlantic Monthly, Caroline Fraser, who was a child of believers in Christian Science, made this statement:

Most people who have heard of Christian Science know one thing about it: Christian Scientists do not "believe" in doctors. More accurately, Christian Scientists do not believe in medical science, or what they call "materia medica." They generally do not accept medical care for themselves, and many do not permit it for their children. They believe they can heal through prayer. Had my brother or sister or I contracted a serious illness or met with a life-threatening accident while we were growing up, we would have been expected to heal ourselves, just as we were expected to heal ourselves of colds, flu, allergies, and bad behavior. That we survived to adulthood was a matter of luck.[32]

The Christian's Apologetics & Research Ministry website, an Apologetics website run by Matthew J. Slick also offers us some additional insight into this area of Christian Science beliefs:

Additionally, Christian Scientists prefer not to use doctors, medicine, or immunizations. Christian Science Practitioners are used to help people through the false reality of illness. Proper prayer and training are employed to battle the "non-reality" of illness.[33]

In contrast, Word Faith teachers are far from embracing such extremes. One of the major Faith teacher, Charles Capps, makes this statement in his book, Dynamics of Faith And Confession:

Here's how I feel about doctors and medicine. If I need a doctor, I'll go to a doctor. If I need medicine, I'll take it. I don't sit around saying, "I don't want to miss God's best." If I am sick I've already missed God's best. We should confess the Word daily. We Build our faith and develop ourselves in God's Word. But if you get sick, don't feel condemned.[34]

Charles Capps endeavors to help people not to feel condemned as a result of seeking medical attention. He does not compromise his message but teaches the balance in trusting God without endangering one's health. Dr. Frederick K.C. Price in his book, Faith, Foolishness, or Presumption also cautions parents against going to extremes in the faith and healing message:

"I am trying to help some of you husband's who put your wives and children into bondage, and make them suffer, just because you want to stand in faith. That is great for you to stand in faith, and I believe that you should do so, but I don't think that you should impose that on your wife and children."[35]

Further in his book, Dr. Price says:

"Thank God that medicine is available if you need it. There is no point in you tossing to and fro all night long, in pain, and not sleeping, when you have a pain pill sitting right by your bed."[36]

I have listened to tapes by Kenneth Hagin where he endorses a similar position as that of Rev. Capps and Dr. Price. In one tape, Rev. Hagin talks about a couple that were a part of his praise and worship team. I believe it was the wife that had diabetes and were trusting God for healing. She took the insulin until their doctor told them to stop.

To my knowledge, no major faith teacher has ever taught against doctors or medicine. Kenneth Hagin has always said that he believes in doctors and has many good friends that are doctors. Therefore, the teachings of the Faith movement cannot be compared to those of Christian Science or any of the metaphysical cults. For men to make these false comparisons are being dishonest and they should not be trusted to speak on these issues.

Meyer, F.B. The Prophet of Hope (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1983), P. 27. It's interesting to note that Meyer also taught the principles of confessing God's Word, trusting God's Word in spite of circumstances or feelings, and other principles that modern day critics claim have it's roots in metaphysical cults. The principles that Meyer taught were common teachings in the Keswick-Holiness movement that he was a part of.
Eddy, Mary Baker, Science and Health, p. 256. As quoted in Walter Martin's classic book, Kingdom of The Cults (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1985), pp. 138-139. I have been told that the latest edition of this book has been updated by Hanegraaf, current CRI president. I am also told that Hanegraaf's edition includes a chapter on the Word-Faith movement, making this movement out to be a cult. This update was made long after the untimely death of Walter Martin and as far as we know, Walter gave no approval for this update prior to his death.
Kenyon, Essek W. The Bible In The Light of Our Redemption (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969), pp. 249-250
Slick, Matthew J. From the CARM website
Eddy, Science and Health, p. 84
Kenyon, The Bible In The Light of Our Redemption, p. 158. Though some take issue with some of Kenyon's teachings of Jesus descent into hell to further suffer on our behalf and His "new birth," Kenyon was far from unorthodox in His teaching on Christ's deity. These other controversial aspects of Christ that Kenyon teaches are not original with him. We will look more into these things in later studies.
Eddy, Science and Health, p. 25
Kenyon, E.W. The Blood Covenant (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969), pp. 44, 45; Hagin, Kenneth E. The Precious Blood of Jesus (Tulsa, OK: Rhema Bible Church, 1984), pp. 2, 15; Copeland, Kenneth and Gloria From Faith to Faith (Forth Worth, Texas), from February 3 devotional reading.
Kenyon, Two Kinds of Knowledge, p. 26
Kenyon, The Father and His Family, p. 123
Eddy, Science and Health, p. 336
Kenyon, Two Kinds of Knowledge
Eddy, No And Yes, page 24. As quoted in Walter Martin's classic book, Kingdom of The Cults (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1985)
Eddy, Science and Health, p. 584
Kenyon, The Father and His Family, p. 57
Kenyon, Essek W Two Kinds Of Righteousness (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1965), p. 9
Kenyon, The Bible In The Light of Our Redemption, p. 211
Martin, Kingdom of the Cults
Kenyon, Kenyon's Personal Evangelism Course
Ibid.
Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 237
Kenyon, Kenyon's Personal Evangelism Course
Kenyon, The Father And His Family, p. 81
Eddy, Science and Health
Kenyon, What Happened from the cross to the throne, p. 69
Kenyon, The New Kind of Love, p. 18
Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, p. 144
Kenyon, The Bible In The Light of Our Redemption, p. 193
Kenyon, Kenyon's Personal Evangelism Course
From Definition of Gnosticism, an essay on the internet (http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm)
Kenyon, Jesus The Healer, pp. 5, 6
Fraser, Caroline Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church (Atlantic Monthly, April 1995 ) Can be found at http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general175.html
Slick, Matthew J. From the CARM website
Capps, Charles Dynamics of Faith and Confession (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1987), p. 202
Price, Frederick K.C. Faith, Foolishness, or Presumption (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1979), p. 88
Ibid. p. 89

Back to Home

Go back to Part One

Go back to Part Two

Go to the Links page