Actually Prosperity is a Bible word and the Prosperity Doctrine is not condemned by the majority of Christianity but by a very vocal minority who largely do not understand it.

@caseyr547 - most major evangelical denominations do not support the prosperity doctrine, because there a major issues with some bible verses (e.g. ones describing suffering for Christ's sake)

@SSumner the evangelical denominations you refer to are not the majority of Christianity and even they don't understand the prosperity doctrine

@SSumner to reject the prosperity doctrine you would have to accept extreme poverty and sickness as a virtue (something not to be corrected or helped) and the majority of Christianity believe poverty and sickness are bad and correctable.

@caseyr547 - no, you would just have to accept them as consequences of a fallen world. Very different than seeing them as a virtue.

@SSumner seeing poverty and sickness as consequences of a fallen world is somewhat believing in the prosperity doctrine

@caseyr547 - perhaps we have different definitions of prosperity doctrine. Let's continue this discussion in chat

sure

@SSumner

Haha I posted that right before you

Okay I define prosperity theology as I did here: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16845/…

"financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that earthly prosperity is a reward for those who follow God"

well those who believe in prosperity dont view it as a reward

and its not just about financial blessing

but also about physical and spirtual

just like salvation is not something you earn any other blessing from God isnt earned

so it cant be a reward

Interesting.

(I agree with most of what you just said, btw)

yeah most do

Just everyone I've ever met defines prosperity doctrine/theology/gospel like I just did

yes they define it without spending time studying it

I don't know about that...

Because some congregations (i.e. Joel Osteen) do espouse pretty much exactly what I said

And I've never heard anyone refer to the blessings God gives us as "prosperity doctine"

If you look at resources online, the commonly understood definition of prosperity doctrine is what I said

yes its commonly misunderstood

the people who dis it never really have done it

or they only did it for a year or something

i've been doing this for a good 20 years

What I'm saying is that I don't think it's commonly misunderstood because the commonly understood meaning of a term becomes the definition

Thus, you can't say someone misunderstands a topic if they use a word in a way that is most commonly understood while you use it in a way that is much less known

yes but just because someone commonly understands quantum physics doesn't mean they are qualified to properly define it

Not really what I'm getting at. Here's an example:

The topic of predestination is pretty much worldwide understood to mean that your 'fate' is determined before you were born. So if I go around talking about predestination where I define it as "you can choose your fate", I'll confuse the crap out of people because it's the exact opposite of what it's understood to mean

There is no "right" or "wrong" definition to a word, only what is commonly understood. that's why we have dictionaries, thesauruses, etc - to provide common vocabularies so everyone knows what we're talking about

no thats not the case with the prosperity doctrin

see with predestination

there are extreams as well

hyper calvinists

calvinist

mixtures of arminian and calvinist

armininists

and hyer arminists

the common defition of predestination comes from the calvinist perspective rather than the hyper calvinist perspective

for whatever reason

with prosperity there are extreams and from those extreams come the common definition

for whatever reason

It was an extreme example because i was going from one extreme to the other, admittedly. But do you understand my point?

not really a definition should be broad enough to explain what a group of people actually believe rather than what is purported that a group believes

But that is what a lot of churches believe. Maybe the definition was hijacked, but that happens all the time in the english language. For example, "gay" used to simply mean "happy", but now in common usage it refers to homosexuality. Some of the megachurches that follow prosperity theology as I define it do embrace that defenition.

For example, Calvinist was not a self-applied label, it was applied from the outside and then it became embraced by those it was meant to describe because it was simple and commonly understood

but you havent studied the mega churches like joel ostean or the groups associated with kenneth copeland and other prosperity teachers?

have you read thier books and gone to their meetings?

No, but I've read enough summaries of what they believe to know what they believe. They don't hide it

ok so all your information is second hand?

all my information is first hand

Okay, I guess...but that doesn't make my point any less valid. Most people understand it to mean one thing, you disagree.

yes i do disagree with the common definition as it doesnt represent us properly

Okay, that was my point. But if you keep using that definition to apply to yourself, you'll just confuse people and I can pretty much guarantee the definition won't be "reclaimed"

we use the term prosperity to define what we believe however we do not use the definition of the people who dont understand what properity is to define what we are and believe

like white people trying to describe what it means to be african american

yes we are black but your idea of what it means to be black may not be correct

But there's no way to say a definition is "correct". Inherently, a definition is simply a meaning applied to a word, phrase, or concept by a group of people.

At its core, definitions are abstract from the thing they represent

well at one time a majority of people mostly whites and a few black defined being black as being sub human they thought black people were something they were not

thier definition was incorrect

it was factually inacurate

No, it wasn't because if you said "that person is black" people knew what you were saying. The point of a definition is to describe something so people know what you're talking about. That's the very basis of language itself.

When the languages were confused at Babel, why couldn't they understand each other? It's because they had uncommon definitions for the same thing. I call a structure that reaches up and has rooms inside a tower, but a Spaniard will call it a "torre", a German a "turm", and in Swahilli it's a "mnara". None of those definitions are wrong, they are just commonly accepted in their own circles.

yes and you define prosperity from a circle which has never experianced any prosperity teaching first hand

I define that structure a "tower" from someone who has never spoken with anyone who speaks Swahilli. So if someone came in and started talking about a "mnara", I wouldn't know what he was talking about. If you define a concept differently, and then go into another circle and try to use the concept as you define it, your message will be lost

thats fine but you really dont know anything much about prosperity doctrin and are not in a position to properly define it

if you would like to learn first hand

i could give you a link

to a insightful series

but even one series

wouldnt give you enough information

I'm not trying to define it. I'm simply giving you how it is defined in most circles. Whether you think it's "correct" or not, that's how it's perceived.

Sure, give me the link

the heart of the prosperity doctrine is giving or sacrificing

flcbranson.org/listseries.php?xml=rss/LovesSacrifice.xml

this is keith moore teaching about it

its a good introduction

he taught at rhema for years

rhema is a word of faith school

besides oral roberts university it is one of the largest groups that believe in faith and prosperity

Okay, I'll look at it. Just so you know, I'm Calvinist/Reformed, so I'll probably have major issues with a lot of things.

But thanks for the link, and the conversation

your very welcome

God Bless

Just checking, since the comment on my answer seemed to take issue with the statement that most Christians reject the Prosperity doctrine, would it be better if I removed ", which is denied and condemned by the majority of Christianity" from my post?