Ok. I listened to the sermon you offered. He wasn't messing around, was he? I think it's dangerous to use terms like "prosperity gospel" too much and I know it's dangerous to use it so generally. It's like saying "Christianity." That is, who knows what you are talking about? There are many distinctions within it (according to some, although everybody thinks they are right and that there is no distinctions and everyone else is just wrong). But you see what I am saying? It's like saying "Perfectionism." You can connect people like Finney and Wesley to that term and uneducated and lazy thinkers will then automatically turn from their teachings if they have been told Perfectionism is wrong or evil or both. But the term has so many distinctions, many of which are probably off. Take any term you like. Pentacostal, Methodist, Calvanist, Catholic, they all have numerous distinctions and there is no simple answer. The lazy thinker says, "Thet're wrong" but when asked to explain they probably only have some evidence of proof texting they have done. But do they understand the other side? Have they been fair minded? They tend to make hasty generalizations I think. I see the same danger with using the term "prosperity gospel" in connection with anyone who has wealth. It is one thing to preach and teach that Jesus came for the main purpose of making us rich, it's quite another to preach the gospel with correct motives and happen be rich. I have never seen in the Bible where it says its a sin to have an abundance of wealth. Let's not press our own convictions on people just because it seems right to us, that is unless God tells us to (but we better be careful and sure of that, that is, we better know His voice and Spirit very well). This brings me to my next point. By your own admission you feel yourself to be a babe in Christ (in Ravenhill forum), and yet you hold that God bore witness with your heart and that you were able to discern the fallacy of the "Toronto Blessing" movement. That is a serious thing and I can't say definately but you might want to reconsider and reassess the situation. Could you have been deceived? Scared? Uncomfortable, and therefore come to fleshly and unrighteous conclusions? I still challenge you to go there and ask around and see what answers you get from people that attend. See what they have to say about that Scripture in Acts and how you understand it and how they can then justify the gold filling thing (if they can). I would be very interested to hear! And then you could understand their perspective on it and judge righteously. I can't say whether or not you are applying the text correctly, I can only say that it doesn't seem clear to me, and so in love (hoping all things/giving the benefit of the doubt) I am going to reserve judgement. And it may or may not become clear to me ever in my life and that's fine, if God doesn't lead me to dig into it then why would I? There's plenty of other things to dwell on, right? I acutally emailed the church the other day to see what they might say but no reply yet. I will keep trying. This can now be a very interesting and fruitful study I think. They must have some answer, right? What could it be? I am hoping I can start a dialoge with someone that goes there. We'll see what happens. My final point. I know that it's a very dangerous thing to believe something for the reason that someone you really like and trust and respect believes it (i.e. Wilkerson and prosperity). By the way, do most people connect the Toronto movement with the prosperity gospel? I honestly am curious and don't know. Here's a bomb for you (that you might have already heard), I just heard Ravenhill say that he didn't agree with how Wilkerson interpreted some scripture in revelation. That's a big deal! Or is it? Even those two, so closely knit in belief and purpose it seems, didn't agree. Let's walk very carefully here, because if the Toronto movement is of God...
