Well, a friend recommended Derek Prince's writings. Some of these can be found in the "Charismatic Interest" section of the local Family Christian Bookstore. I'm willing to listen to (almost) anyone's thoughts, provided the arguments are supported by Scripture. If you've read Derek Prince's stuff, do you find it edifying?

It didn't used to be when I was growing up.

Generally,

You are getting Arminian-influenced, dispensational teaching not accountable by Confession (before you even get to other issues).

Could you ever learn something biblically true from this person? Probably yes, but it's more likely you will get an overall unbiblical systematic framework.

Ask your friend if he can recommend something by Spurgeon, Piper or Sproul.

Jim Bob-

When I got saved in 73, I came home from college and was introduced to a church in Philly that was heavily influenced by the Ft Lauderdale 5 (Prince, Mumford, Baxter, Simson, Basham). The young charismatic movement was starting to divide at the time, and one group became the faith movement which eventually morphed into the prosperity and self esteem gospel, and the other the shepherding and discipleship movement (with a lot of top down authority that was often severely abused) primarily led by the Ft L 5.

For people who wanted to study the word and be into the inerrant word and theology, Prince was pretty much the leading mentor. In some respects he was excellent, such as Romans and justification by faith. He believed in study and doctrine and was a refreshing voice in what was becoming a push towards ecumenicalism with everybody ( catholics, Jesus-only modalists, you name it) in a "doctrine doesn't matter so let's guard our unity" mentality.

That said, He had two major problems. One was an approach to problems that was heavily oriented towards breaking ancestral curses. Physical problems and emotional ones were often the result of the sin of great granny the witch or grandpop the mason, etc. Sin was minimized and sovereignty almost non existent. A heavy emphasis on casting out demons went along with this.

Secondly, he was heavily dispensational regarding biblcal promises with the word Israel or Zion in them. Even excellent reformed folks talking about the end times, like John Murray and Riddlebarger, will definitely say that Romans 11 is clearly literal and someday the genetic Jews will be saved en masse, and those promises to Jews in Romans 11 mean Jews. But Prince took all kinds of promises that belong to the church and makes them to Jews. ( His first wife was a missionary from Denmark to Jerusalem who adopted 8 Jewish and Arab babies before they met; it is a rather lovely story when he fell in love with her). In my opinion he moves into serious error.

It just isn't with listening to and trying to sort out the good from the bad. Like Scott said, there are so many better people to read. 30 years ago I was a huge DP fan, and at least I was immersed in the bible listening to him, but I look back on it as such a waste, and in some cases ( like the over emphasis on demonic activity) destructive.

Derek Prince is not the worst. In other words, he was good for the charismatic movement, in that, he emphasised the need for 1) scripture and 2) sound doctrine to be at the center of the Christian faith rather than experience. A charismatic who reads his stuff will be better equipped than a charismatic who reads more of the popular stuff (trash).

I'm not saying all his doctrine is correct, but he was one of the better ones. He wrote a book called Foundations for Righteous Living which is like a charismatic systematic theology.

Thank you Lynnie! A very informative and useful reply. My friend who recommend DP also stresses the battle with demons and generational issues...hence the DP connection.