Hank Hanegraaff - Bible or False Teacher?

Christie insb · Jan 23, 2018

Emli said:
I don't believe that we can commit the unpardonable sin just by judging some sign or wonder, because we have to look at what they are teaching.

Just some thoughts...

Also, the fruit of the person making the judgment. I am not going to say that people who judged the Toronto movement as not from God have committed the unpardonable sin, but some who condemn other believers have so much anger and self-righteousness that I don't think they are being very godly.

As for Hank himself, I learned on the Orthodox board that he converted to Orthodoxy late in life. To me, it seems if someone makes a serious, life-changing move like that, I believe he was really seeking God. And to me, that's the real question.

Gregory Thompson · Jan 23, 2018

Oscarr said:
I don't how on what basis you are describing revivals as "psychological" and "mind control". Anyone who has done comprehensive and honest research, or has actually attended the revival meetings would not have described them that way. What you are implying is some type of "hypnotism" which has been described by some critics, but those who have attended the revivals first hand has labeled that description "absolutely ridiculous". In fact the "fruit" of all these revivals has been a great increase in Bible believing, Jesus loving, stable church members.

It seems my two concepts were mushed together to make a chimera concept in your mind, apologies for not being clearer.

The older kind of revivals, or the previous kind prior to the Pentecostal style revivals were an area of effect type of revival in which people would experience the fear of the lord and need to see a priest. One might think they were a form of mind control used by the society that was christian at the time, as a similar form of mind control is used for the current social agenda which is not christian.

The newer type of revivals are psychological in nature in which there is no "spill over" it is a very "individual revival" . Though hypnotic elements are heavily incorporated into the church elements, this is related to the culture it started in.

Making such observations is important because revival is one of my constant topics of research. This research involves experiencing the various forms in church and beyond church, and see what is manufactured and what sticks, and what bears the fruit of the spirit and so forth.

For example, there is a spiritual element in some christian churches that really makes one fervent bible readers, I've experienced the effects myself, but also the side effect of this same "element" that sucks out any element of compassion out of you. And there is this element in other circles that places people in state of mind where the pain is gone, but then it fades away revealing that it did not resolve the problems. So in these and similar manifestations, I see many different things ... and for now, prayerful observations are really all I can make.

Light of the East · Jan 23, 2018

Oscarr said:
Yes, there is only one Church - all those who have received Jesus as Saviour, and that Church includes the 50 million Pentecostals and Charismatic believers as well.

Ah yes, the old "invisible Church" ploy that was created by Mssrs. Luther and Calvin to defend their wretched rebellion against authority. Utterly bogus.

1. Whenever the Church is spoken of in the Old Covenant (qu'hal) or the New Covenant (eclessia) it is speaking of a visible organization with a hierarchical structure and a specific form of worship given by God. Man doesn't get to take the worship that God has given and change it into some sort of circus to please his own tastes.

2. When God first began to assemble the qu'hal (Church) with Moses, he warned Moses not to tamper with the worship that was being shown to him. The idea of an invisible Church is therefore impossible because the eklessia of the New Covenant should be a continuation of that worship which began with Moses. It is easy to see that nothing in Protestantism even vaguely resembles that which the Apostles began to establish in the first century.

3. It is further impossible to have the invisible Church because if right worship is important to God, there is no way that a thousand different forms of worship can all be correct. Pentecostals don't worship like Anglicans, who don't worship like Baptists, who don't worship like SDA, who don't worship like Church of God, etc. etc etc. The worship that is supposed to be done on earth is, according to Hebrews 9: 23-24, a pattern and shadow of the heavenly worship.

4. There is no authority over an "invisible Church." No one was able to reign in Jimmy Swaggart after his fall because unlike the apostolic Church, which has the ability to strip priests and bishops of their authority when they do wickedness, the independent nature of Protestant churches, where everyone is his own little pope, insures that a wayward preacher will simply go somewhere else and start a new congregation.

5. How does an "invisible Church" determine truth. This forum alone is proof positive that it is impossible. Hundreds of different doctrines with no one central source to say whether or not something is God's truth. Is truth important? I ask again Is truth important? The visible, hierarchical Church, the ONE CHURCH which Christ Jesus established and which is the "pillar and ground of truth" according to Scripture, has defended the truth since Day One, establishing God's truth in the matters of worship, rulership, and doctrine. No one outside the Church can state what truth is, only opinions, and we see them argued here all the time.

6. How does Pentecostalism meet the requirements of Hebrews 9: 23-24, to be a shadow of the heavenly, when we see nothing in it that looks like heaven? No incense (Rev. 8:4), no prayers of the saints in heaven (Rev. 8:4), no intercession of the saints for us on earth (Rev. 5:8), no priests (Rev. 4:4). And this goes for most all of Protestantism as well. The Church is supposed to look like heaven on earth. How can an invisible Church even look like anything?

The whole point of creating the "invisible Church," an idea never known prior to 1517 and Luther, was to take away the visible authority of God on earth. It made every man his own authority, his intellect the defining point of theology, and his desires the point of morality.

Gregory Thompson · Jan 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Ah yes, the old "invisible Church" ploy that was created by Mssrs. Luther and Calvin to defend their wretched rebellion against authority. Utterly bogus.

1. Whenever the Church is spoken of in the Old Covenant (qu'hal) or the New Covenant (eclessia) it is speaking of a visible organization with a hierarchical structure and a specific form of worship given by God. Man doesn't get to take the worship that God has given and change it into some sort of circus to please his own tastes.

2. When God first began to assemble the qu'hal (Church) with Moses, he warned Moses not to tamper with the worship that was being shown to him. The idea of an invisible Church is therefore impossible because the eklessia of the New Covenant should be a continuation of that worship which began with Moses. It is easy to see that nothing in Protestantism even vaguely resembles that which the Apostles began to establish in the first century.

3. It is further impossible to have the invisible Church because if right worship is important to God, there is no way that a thousand different forms of worship can all be correct. Pentecostals don't worship like Anglicans, who don't worship like Baptists, who don't worship like SDA, who don't worship like Church of God, etc. etc etc. The worship that is supposed to be done on earth is, according to Hebrews 9: 23-24, a pattern and shadow of the heavenly worship.

4. There is no authority over an "invisible Church." No one was able to reign in Jimmy Swaggart after his fall because unlike the apostolic Church, which has the ability to strip priests and bishops of their authority when they do wickedness, the independent nature of Protestant churches, where everyone is his own little pope, insures that a wayward preacher will simply go somewhere else and start a new congregation.

5. How does an "invisible Church" determine truth. This forum alone is proof positive that it is impossible. Hundreds of different doctrines with no one central source to say whether or not something is God's truth. Is truth important? I ask again Is truth important? The visible, hierarchical Church, the ONE CHURCH which Christ Jesus established and which is the "pillar and ground of truth" according to Scripture, has defended the truth since Day One, establishing God's truth in the matters of worship, rulership, and doctrine. No one outside the Church can state what truth is, only opinions, and we see them argued here all the time.

6. How does Pentecostalism meet the requirements of Hebrews 9: 23-24, to be a shadow of the heavenly, when we see nothing in it that looks like heaven? No incense (Rev. 8:4), no prayers of the saints in heaven (Rev. 8:4), no intercession of the saints for us on earth (Rev. 5:8), no priests (Rev. 4:4). And this goes for most all of Protestantism as well. The Church is supposed to look like heaven on earth. How can an invisible Church even look like anything?

The whole point of creating the "invisible Church," an idea never known prior to 1517 and Luther, was to take away the visible authority of God on earth. It made every man his own authority, his intellect the defining point of theology, and his desires the point of morality.

Making this thread about the catholic church is really far off topic I think, but since we're on the "the catholic church is the one true church" discussion since you brought it up ... isn't it bad to criticize post reformation traditions of faith since they all came from the Catholic Church? I mean, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The main point of criticism is the first church splits, regarding what is now called Orthodox and Catholic. The catholics base a lot of theology on mystical experiences, the orthodox base their theology more closely to scripture. The way orthodox and catholics relate isn't much different than baptists and pentecostals.

So to return to the words of Jesus, first pull the two by four out of your eye, before taking some sawdust out of someone else's eye.

Christie insb · Jan 23, 2018

Oscarr said:
I agree that just asking questions about the Charismatic movement is not the unforgivable sin, but making definite statements that it is of the devil could be.

There is nothing wrong with Charismatic theology. Most Pentecostal and Charismatic churches abide by the Westminster Confession of Faith, with the addition that they believe that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today. The problems in the movement are not the manifestations that are similar to other revivals, like falling down with conviction of sin, and through the power of the Spirit, shaking, speaking in tongues, prophecy, which are characteristics of all revivals, even before the Charismatic movement happened. The problems are the excesses from the lunatic fringe which has also happened in every revival, right from the dawn of Church history. Paul corrected excesses in the Corinthian church, but he didn't accuse the whole church of being of the devil or counterfeit that if Hanegraaff was living at the time, would.

Oscar, your perspective is too nuanced to get into a rip-roaring argument over. And I agree with you, so sorry, you are not going to get any argument from me. And I am coming way late to this party anyway.

lamb7 · Jan 23, 2018

Interesting points. I believe as long as you are trusting in Christ for your salvation you are sealed until the day of redemption with The Holy Spirit ♡
Ephesians 4:30

If he (or any true believer) in any movement) is wrong about what he speaks he would be grieving the Spirit and would answer for it at the Bema Seat of Christ. Remember the context of the blasphemy of Holy Spirit which happened only once but is recorded 3 times in the gospels and no mention of this after that. If it was such a risk to our souls as believers Paul, John and Peter would have mentioned it in my opinion.

The context:
It was Jesus operating in the Sprirt and the Sprirt was proving who He was. The Pharisees knew He was of God Nicodmeus even admits it. They on purpose knowing it is God slander him on purpose to turn the people away from Christ and to rely on the Pharisees and so they can remain in high places. The Pharisess were Christ's enemies. The scriptures they were searching proved what He did only the Messiah could do, they were looking for Him, this wasn't disbelief or even ignorance they knew His power was The Holy Spirit, but with irrefutable evidence chose to slander Him for their own benefit. Now of course I belive Christ was lovingly warning the Phariees to not cross the line of course have they have accepted Christ they would recieve forgivness. Remember Paul was a blasphemer and received mercy since he acted in ignorance, though Paul thought he was right.

John 3:2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him."

The Holy Spirit advises us to test the spirits
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for MANY false prophets have gone out into the world" John 4:1
So I don't see Him damning us if we get it wrong especially since He commands us to be on guard and to test all things.

I believe the Baptist cessosonist non charismatic and the Pentecostal Charismatic are saved if they are trusting in Christ alone for their salvation.

If the Pentecostals are wrong they are not going to hell, and if the non-charismatics are wrong they are not going to hell. Why? They are trusting on the grace and mercy of Christ to save them, no amount of works can save us, but relying on the Saviour does. I am so blessed to be made righteous by His righteousness. God bless.

More reading

https://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html
https://faithbibleministriesblog.com/2016/01/10/blasphemy-of-the-holy-spirit-notable-original-work/
https://faithbibleministriesblog.com/2016/01/10/blasphemy-of-the-holy-spirit-notable-original-work/

~Anastasia~ · Jan 23, 2018

faroukfarouk said:
I didn't know HH was Episcopalian.

He's been called Episcopalian and Presbyterian in this thread.

I'm not so sure about either.

I didn't closely follow his work or anything, but as far as I know he spent most of his life as an Evangelical (which is a more radically reformed type), and then less than a year ago converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

His theology in question is from a book published I believe in 1997 or so.

Light of the East · Jan 23, 2018

Michael Collum said:
Making this thread about the catholic church is really far off topic I think, but since we're on the "the catholic church is the one true church" discussion since you brought it up ... isn't it bad to criticize post reformation traditions of faith since they all came from the Catholic Church? I mean, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The main point of criticism is the first church splits, regarding what is now called Orthodox and Catholic. The catholics base a lot of theology on mystical experiences, the orthodox base their theology more closely to scripture. The way orthodox and catholics relate isn't much different than baptists and pentecostals.

So to return to the words of Jesus, first pull the two by four out of your eye, before taking some sawdust out of someone else's eye.

Well, I didn't say Catholic Church now, did I? I understand you assumed this since my avatar says Ukrainian Catholic, but I am 98% Orthodox because, as you said, Orthodoxy adheres more closely to Scripture and the Early Fathers. I don't accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on several issues, most of them coming after the schism of 1054AD and during their Medieval Period.

However, to compare Baptists and Pentecostals against Catholic and Orthodox seems kind of ..... odd to me. Roman Catholics only have to let go of a very small amount of heterodoxy to come back to a united Church. Baptists and Pentecostals, OTOH, seem miles apart. Just my perception.

Gregory Thompson · Jan 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Well, I didn't say Catholic Church now, did I? I understand you assumed this since my avatar says Ukrainian Catholic, but I am 98% Orthodox because, as you said, Orthodoxy adheres more closely to Scripture and the Early Fathers. I don't accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on several issues, most of them coming after the schism of 1054AD and during their Medieval Period.

However, to compare Baptists and Pentecostals against Catholic and Orthodox seems kind of ..... odd to me. Roman Catholics only have to let go of a very small amount of heterodoxy to come back to a united Church. Baptists and Pentecostals, OTOH, seem miles apart. Just my perception.

I guess having experienced "bapticostalism" myself it doesn't seem all that different.

ToBeLoved · Jan 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Ah yes, the old "invisible Church" ploy that was created by Mssrs. Luther and Calvin to defend their wretched rebellion against authority. Utterly bogus.

1. Whenever the Church is spoken of in the Old Covenant (qu'hal) or the New Covenant (eclessia) it is speaking of a visible organization with a hierarchical structure and a specific form of worship given by God. Man doesn't get to take the worship that God has given and change it into some sort of circus to please his own tastes.

2. When God first began to assemble the qu'hal (Church) with Moses, he warned Moses not to tamper with the worship that was being shown to him. The idea of an invisible Church is therefore impossible because the eklessia of the New Covenant should be a continuation of that worship which began with Moses. It is easy to see that nothing in Protestantism even vaguely resembles that which the Apostles began to establish in the first century.

3. It is further impossible to have the invisible Church because if right worship is important to God, there is no way that a thousand different forms of worship can all be correct. Pentecostals don't worship like Anglicans, who don't worship like Baptists, who don't worship like SDA, who don't worship like Church of God, etc. etc etc. The worship that is supposed to be done on earth is, according to Hebrews 9: 23-24, a pattern and shadow of the heavenly worship.

4. There is no authority over an "invisible Church." No one was able to reign in Jimmy Swaggart after his fall because unlike the apostolic Church, which has the ability to strip priests and bishops of their authority when they do wickedness, the independent nature of Protestant churches, where everyone is his own little pope, insures that a wayward preacher will simply go somewhere else and start a new congregation.

5. How does an "invisible Church" determine truth. This forum alone is proof positive that it is impossible. Hundreds of different doctrines with no one central source to say whether or not something is God's truth. Is truth important? I ask again Is truth important? The visible, hierarchical Church, the ONE CHURCH which Christ Jesus established and which is the "pillar and ground of truth" according to Scripture, has defended the truth since Day One, establishing God's truth in the matters of worship, rulership, and doctrine. No one outside the Church can state what truth is, only opinions, and we see them argued here all the time.

6. How does Pentecostalism meet the requirements of Hebrews 9: 23-24, to be a shadow of the heavenly, when we see nothing in it that looks like heaven? No incense (Rev. 8:4), no prayers of the saints in heaven (Rev. 8:4), no intercession of the saints for us on earth (Rev. 5:8), no priests (Rev. 4:4). And this goes for most all of Protestantism as well. The Church is supposed to look like heaven on earth. How can an invisible Church even look like anything?

The whole point of creating the "invisible Church," an idea never known prior to 1517 and Luther, was to take away the visible authority of God on earth. It made every man his own authority, his intellect the defining point of theology, and his desires the point of morality.

Please list the verses in the New Testament since you referenced it that shows that the worship and directives given to the apostles by God even weakly resembles the church you are saying is following the New and Old Testament?

ToBeLoved · Jan 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Well, I didn't say Catholic Church now, did I? I understand you assumed this since my avatar says Ukrainian Catholic, but I am 98% Orthodox because, as you said, Orthodoxy adheres more closely to Scripture and the Early Fathers. I don't accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on several issues, most of them coming after the schism of 1054AD and during their Medieval Period.

However, to compare Baptists and Pentecostals against Catholic and Orthodox seems kind of ..... odd to me. Roman Catholics only have to let go of a very small amount of heterodoxy to come back to a united Church. Baptists and Pentecostals, OTOH, seem miles apart. Just my perception.

You kind of gave yourself away, belief subgroup or not when you said

"Ah yes, the old "invisible Church" ploy that was created by Mssrs. Luther and Calvin to defend their wretched rebellion against authority. Utterly bogus."

Maybe if you don't want to give yourself away, you should try to appear less rigid.

eleos1954 · Jan 23, 2018

Oscarr said:
Commenting on Hanegraaff's book, "Counterfeit Revival", James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research". Other respected Bible teachers with doctoral decrees have described most statements in his book as "ridiculous". These prominent and reliable Bible teachers are far better qualified than Hanegraaff who does not even have have a College Degree, and his research into Revivals lacks depth and the standard of scholarship. This may mean that if his book was presented even as an undergraduate essay, it would not achieve a passing grade from any good non-Charismatic Bible seminary.

So, if Hanegraaff is asserting that modern revivals, including the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Brownsville revivals are counterfeit, and therefore are of the devil; but could actually, through their fruits are proved to be of the Holy Spirit, then could it be possible that when he faces the Lord Jesus Christ in person, he may be found to have committed the unforgivable sin, and that Jesus may say, "Regardless of what you think you have done and said for Me, I never knew you?"

This could start an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of my statement.

Hank Hanegraff has joined into the Catholic faith.
Eastern Orthodox -
The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] also known as the Orthodox Church,[2] or officially as the Orthodox Catholic Church,[3]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...nk-hanegraaff-orthodoxy-cri-watchman-nee.html

~Anastasia~ · Jan 23, 2018

eleos1954 said:
Hank Hanegraff has joined into the Catholic faith.
Eastern Orthodox -
The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] also known as the Orthodox Church,[2] or officially as the Orthodox Catholic Church,[3]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...nk-hanegraaff-orthodoxy-cri-watchman-nee.html

That may be officially true, but if you say "Hank Hanegraaf joined the Catholic faith" more than 99% of the people on this forum would misunderstand you. It is more easily understood to say that he became Orthodox.

It is good that you provided more info.

I'm sure the Catholics would likewise say they are orthodox (in the meaning of the word, not referring to our communion).

Strange that the man is given so many tags in this thread, though I suppose he is it's topic.

Presbyterian Continuist · Jan 23, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
That may be officially true, but if you say "Hank Hanegraaf joined the Catholic faith" more than 99% of the people on this forum would misunderstand you. It is more easily understood to say that he became Orthodox.

It is good that you provided more info.

I'm sure the Catholics would likewise say they are orthodox (in the meaning of the word, not referring to our communion).

Strange that the man is given so many tags in this thread, though I suppose he is it's topic.

He is the topic, not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Wikipedia reports him as being affiliated with the Presbyterian church before he converted to E.O.

I want to make myself clear here (not actually for you, but for others who are getting a little off topic by commenting on the Catholic Church) that this thread is to examine and discuss whether Mr Hanegraaff is a genuine Bible Teacher or not. I don't know him, never met him, nor have I viewed or listened to his general Bible teaching. This is why I am being careful not to make any assertive statements about him, but to frame things as questions for discussion. If I made assertive statements one way or another I would be a bit hypocritical, because I was arguing in another thread that the accusers of Benny Hinn hadn't taken the time to review all of his teaching, didn't know the man, nor attended any of his meetings. It was interesting that one person who has just joined the thread finds it difficult to find anything to actually argue against. This is being a fairly good natured thread so far, and not "tearing each other part" as one poster remarked. I guess that guy would be quite suited to be in the audience at a Roman Colosseum enjoying the lions tearing people apart in the arena (just kidding).

Actually, this thread is more of a discussion about Mr Hanegraaff's book "Charismatic Chaos" than his general Bible teaching. I am taking the stance that his views toward Charismatics are sincere, rather than a deliberate attempt to discredit the movement. I think that he is a sincere Bible teacher wanting to preserve the body of Christ from damage resulting from a movement he truly believes is false and deceptive.

The point is, is his research comprehensive and accurate enough to give credibility to his assertive comments about the Charismatic movement in his book? Is the foundation for his book based on Cessationist belief that the supernatural gifts ceased at the end of the Apostolic age? Is he basing his opinions on just the manifestations and not on the soul-winning, Jesus loving, Bible believing, repentance and holiness components that seem to be more prominent in the Charismatic movement than the manifestations? (in fact, for most Charismatic congregations, their Sunday morning worship services are so devoid of unusual manifestations, that you would think you were in a Baptist church service than a Pentecostal one, and in the 10 years I spent in a truly Charismatic church, I did not see any unusual manifestations in any of the Sunday services. Most services were similar to the Sunday services in my present "middle of the road" Presbyterian church!). These are the questions that form the basis of this thread.

Presbyterian Continuist · Jan 23, 2018

I'll share some of my own experiences in the Pentecostal/Charismatic church from the perspective of a long-term (50 year) Charismatic
I was converted to Christ in a 400 member Assembly of God church. Although many were speaking in tongues in that Sunday evangelistic service, I did not see any unusual manifestations like falling over or rolling around the floor. The people sang the songs and hymns with gusto and appeared to be really enjoying church. The preacher was very animated in the sermon and acted out parts of it while he spoke. (that preacher became a very respected Bible teacher in Australia and passed away last year at the age of 83, having continued to teach right up to his death). I saw only one person having a demon cast out of him and screamed like a stuck pig. Having worked in a holiday job at an abattoir, I remember thinking, "I've never seen a guy die before."

When I attended Sunday morning services, they were very quiet, and quite similar to Baptist services, and there was not the excitement that I observed in the Sunday evening meetings. It is significant to me that every Sunday evening, at least seven or eight people received Christ for the first time. I attended two baptismal services (Sunday evening) and found them more of an enthusiastic and joyful celebration than anything weird or wacky.
Then I started to attend a smaller AOG in the central city, and those services were even more like a Baptist service in terms of the order of service and the preaching. The same was when I attended an AOG and an Elim church in my home town, a smaller provincial town. In the Elim church there was a man from the local Open Brethren who use to pray the opening prayer and took 10 minutes, and the prayer was more like a gospel sermon than an opening prayer. I went to the local Baptist church that had around 200 members in it, and there was more enthusiasm there than in the Pentecostal churches in that town. I did go to a "oneness" Pentecostal church and was put off it because they spent the first 30 minutes standing up and loudly worshiping. I found it actually boring to have to stand and do that for so long.

When I moved from Wellington to another provincial city, I joined a small Pentecostal church that also was very similar in format to a Baptist church, except that people did speak in tongues during the worship service. But the pastor was a very strict Holiness man who had come out of the Methodist Holiness movement. I saw him stop some people in Maori conventions he ran when they started to exhibit some wacky manifestations. I think he didn't believe in them. His preaching emphasised holiness of life and any working of the Holy Spirit, including the prophetic was to enhance holiness in the believer. In the three years I was in that church, I saw no one fall down or roll around the floor in any of the services. I heard tongues, prophecy, and prayers for healing, and good sound doctrinal preaching, and that was it.

When I got married, I joined my wife's church that was a Baptist church that had turned Charismatic. Then it moved from the small suburban church, took over a larger auditorium in the central city and formed itself into an independent Charismatic church. It was similar to the 400 strong AOG that I was first converted it, but quite a bit quieter. I did not observe any actual wacky manifestations in that church either, and I was in it from 1972-1978 at deacon level, so I knew what went on at leadership level. The elders were down-to-earth sensible men, holding to holiness and sound doctrine. A good number had Open Brethren, Anglican, Presbyterian and Lutheran backgrounds, and so that brought a depth and soundness to the doctrinal basis of that church.

Even when I participated in the large interdenominational conventions, I did not see any of the excesses that have been spoken about in Mr Hanegraaff's book. I did see one combined city evangelistic meeting where the preacher lined up people at the altar, went along and laid hands on each one, and each person fell over backwards. I felt that was more fleshly theatre, than a true working of the Holy Spirit. That was because they all got up unchanged.

However, that is my general experience with Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, and, as you can see, it is quite unlike the "Charismania" that the critics are describing the movement.

ToBeLoved · Jan 23, 2018

Oscarr said:
Actually, this thread is more of a discussion about Mr Hanegraaff's book "Charismatic Chaos" than his general Bible teaching. I am taking the stance that his views toward Charismatics are sincere, rather than a deliberate attempt to discredit the movement. I think that he is a sincere Bible teacher wanting to preserve the body of Christ from damage resulting from a movement he truly believes is false and deceptive.

Wasn't the book Charismatic Chaos written by John MacArthur?

https://books.google.com/books/about/Charismatic_Chaos.html?id=TnVj53uZVjkC

lamb7 · Jan 23, 2018

Oscarr said:
He is the topic, not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Wikipedia reports him as being affiliated with the Presbyterian church before he converted to E.O.

I want to make myself clear here (not actually for you, but for others who are getting a little off topic by commenting on the Catholic Church) that this thread is to examine and discuss whether Mr Hanegraaff is a genuine Bible Teacher or not. I don't know him, never met him, nor have I viewed or listened to his general Bible teaching. This is why I am being careful not to make any assertive statements about him, but to frame things as questions for discussion. If I made assertive statements one way or another I would be a bit hypocritical, because I was arguing in another thread that the accusers of Benny Hinn hadn't taken the time to review all of his teaching, didn't know the man, nor attended any of his meetings. It was interesting that one person who has just joined the thread finds it difficult to find anything to actually argue against. This is being a fairly good natured thread so far, and not "tearing each other part" as one poster remarked. I guess that guy would be quite suited to be in the audience at a Roman Colosseum enjoying the lions tearing people apart in the arena (just kidding).

Actually, this thread is more of a discussion about Mr Hanegraaff's book "Charismatic Chaos" than his general Bible teaching. I am taking the stance that his views toward Charismatics are sincere, rather than a deliberate attempt to discredit the movement. I think that he is a sincere Bible teacher wanting to preserve the body of Christ from damage resulting from a movement he truly believes is false and deceptive.

The point is, is his research comprehensive and accurate enough to give credibility to his assertive comments about the Charismatic movement in his book? Is the foundation for his book based on Cessationist belief that the supernatural gifts ceased at the end of the Apostolic age? Is he basing his opinions on just the manifestations and not on the soul-winning, Jesus loving, Bible believing, repentance and holiness components that seem to be more prominent in the Charismatic movement than the manifestations? (in fact, for most Charismatic congregations, their Sunday morning worship services are so devoid of unusual manifestations, that you would think you were in a Baptist church service than a Pentecostal one, and in the 10 years I spent in a truly Charismatic church, I did not see any unusual manifestations in any of the Sunday services. Most services were similar to the Sunday services in my present "middle of the road" Presbyterian church!). These are the questions that form the basis of this thread.

You bring up a great point. We do not know if they are true or not. Hanegraaff or Hinn. All we can do is pray that they stay true to the faith and in God's ever patient grace. We cannot see their hearts and intentions as God can. We all are human and make mistakes but the Holy Spirit will guide us to truth even when we get it wrong as a loving parent does his child. I used to assume people's salvation and or status with God. God corrected me by saying are you God? Humbly I said no... and have now left the judging to Him. I still slip up at times though.

Light of the East · Jan 23, 2018

Michael Collum said:
I guess having experienced "bapticostalism" myself it doesn't seem all that different.

LOL!!!

Yeah, but I think that when the issue of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" would be brought up -- ooooooh, watch out for flying plates!!!

Light of the East · Jan 23, 2018

ToBeLoved said:
You kind of gave yourself away, belief subgroup or not when you said

"Ah yes, the old "invisible Church" ploy that was created by Mssrs. Luther and Calvin to defend their wretched rebellion against authority. Utterly bogus."

Maybe if you don't want to give yourself away, you should try to appear less rigid.

Not rigid. Truthful. I don't apologize for stating facts.

Calvin and Luther rebelled against the Roman Church. Fact.

Whether they were justified in doing so is a discussion for another thread.

But I'm still not Roman Catholic.

Light of the East · Jan 23, 2018

ToBeLoved said:
Please list the verses in the New Testament since you referenced it that shows that the worship and directives given to the apostles by God even weakly resembles the church you are saying is following the New and Old Testament?

God gave the Church of the Old Covenant the Passover.

Jesus changed it into the Eucharist (Matthew 26: 26-28) The Passover continues in the Eucharist and the Eucharist fulfills the shadow of the Passover.

God gave the Church of the Old Covenant circumcision as the ritual of covenant cutting by which one was entered into the earthly Kingdom (Genesis 17: 10-12)

In the New Covenant, circumcision is changed to "the circumcision made without hands" (Colossians 2: 11-12)

In the Old Covenant, God established the priesthood as mediators between God and man. They received sacrifices from men and offered those sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. The penitent would place his hand upon the animal, confess his sins over the animal, and the animal was killed, thus suffering the penalty for covenant-breaking in the place of the sinner.

In the New Covenant, Jesus establishes a new priesthood by giving authority to the Apostles to hear and forgive sins (John 20:23). Then, having confessed his/her sin, the penitent is restored to fullness of faith by eating the Lamb of God, just as in the Old Covenant, the sinner and the priest would eat of the sin offering.

In the Old Covenant, there was a high priest who offered YOM KIPPUR (Lev. 16) for the sins of the nation to keep the nation in covenant with God. This high priest was a picture and type of the Great High Priest (Hebrews 7-10) who offers His spotless precious Blood in the "tabernacle not made with hands" in the heavenlies for the New Covenant Church.

Weakly????? Pfffffffffftttttt............I don't think so!!!!

Hank Hanegraaff - Bible or False Teacher?

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Little Lamb

† Handmaid of God †

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is Love

† Handmaid of God †

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Little Lamb

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Similar threads