A little information

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Andrew
that's where you are wrong. why dont you check with Erwin the site owner on the forum's stand.

and if your arg is right, that wld mean catholics are not welcome here either. [/B]

Why would Catholics be on a forum entitled, "Non-Denominational/ Reformed/ Protestant Discussions?"

They do not fit the category. They are not "non-denominational, or Reformed and the word Protestant is counter to their beliefs.

 

[Andrew]

Excuse me but you said:

What I'd like to know is why this forum allows WOF proponents to participate?

suggesting that WOF people shldnt be allowed here. If tht's true, then neither shld Catholics. but all are welcome to participate.

Revelation for you: WOF is part of non-denom. My church is non-denom, we follow much of WOF teachings though not everything. so do the Pentecostals and charismatics (eg healing, prosperity, tongues etc)

 

[Outspoken]

"This will refute a number of the errors in the book as well as exposing the many logical fallacies that have been committed in its writing."

LOL, who ever wrote that "paper" did so without reading the book, I've read some of the books those people have put out and then read that book CIC. Its VERY correct and right on, and like apologist said, it includes an audio tape with the people saying the EXACT things Hank clams. Very well written and researched book.

"Of course, Hanegraaff's whole argument topples if Counterfeit Revival readers find out that Wimber, Hunter, Arnott, Clark, Howard-Browne, and company all believe, despite their errors and excesses, in the authority of Scripture and in the essentials of the gospel. "

LOL, no it does, God habitually uses things not of him to bring people to him. Christ's death was not OF HIM, but he sure used it to bring us to him all right. Counterfeit revival is another I've read and again, its right on.

 

[Outspoken]

Apologist is right, the title WOF is not any of those, but I would also state they are christian, but the WOF is a MOVEMENT, not a denomination, but that's just my opinion

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Apologist
Then maybe you should get Christianity In Crisis in the audio form and hear these false teachers in their own words.

Why? So I can hear good splicing techniques? 

If it was done in written form why would I not expect it to be done in audio?  Even if the accused had their sermons given in entirety, would that excuse the book form that has them quoted innacurately?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Apologist
Tomorrow and Friday Hank Hanegraaff's guest on the Bible Answer Man broadcast will be Paul Scozzafava and they will be discussing the Word of Faith movement. I don't know what times it is on in your area but you can check out the archives at www.equip.org

The first and last time I listened to HH, I was actually looking forward to it, since I had listened to Walter Martin when he did the Bible Answer Man. 

People from the opposite opinion barely got questions out of their mouth and he was yelling at them and calling them names. 

No thank you.  The Bible tells us to stay away from contentious people, much less listen to them.

I did enjoy his book "The Prayer of Jesus".  But I will not listen to someone who answers before he's heard the whole matter.  The Bible says, "a man who answers before he's heard the whole matter is a fool".

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Apologist
You have the tenacity to complain to the moderators about us speaking out against the WOF movement and then you post this obvious ad hominem attack against Hank Hanegraaff?

Typical tactics of the WOF flock!

Typical tactics?  Until now, we've withheld.  We are not attacking HH, we're attacking his book and his tapes and any other form of attack on the brethren he uses. 

Very few, if any of the WOF teachers even bother to answer the accusations made against them. . .why?. . .because their being screamed at before they can even finish their defense.  They just leave it in the Lord's hands.  He says "vengence is Mine".

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Andrew
Christianity Today, September 1, 1997

Critique to Hank Hanegraaff's Counterfeit Revival

Hank Hanegraaff's long-awaited book against what he perceives as a counterfeit revival (rooted in Satan the "master counterfeiter" who "masquerades as an angel of enlightenment") represents a significant moment in Christian publishing. Its significance lies in three things. First, the spectacular selling run of Hanegraaff's work alone makes it a must-read for those who want to track trends in the Christian community.

Second, Counterfeit Revival exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements. Hanegraaff rightly criticizes the undue emphasis on strange manifestations in the world of modern revivalism. This misplaced focus is especially disturbing given the regular diet of anti-intellectual rhetoric, slim biblical exposition, and revelatory claims on which many who participate in these movements are nurtured. Hanegraaff also documents some very intemperate judgments made against him by South African evangelist Rodney Howard-Browne at a renewal meeting in Anaheim and warns against sectarian judgments and spiritual death threats from prophets and leaders connected with the Toronto renewal, ones that should be publicly and finally repudiated by Toronto Blessing leader John Arnott.

But Hanegraaff's work is also important for a third and tragic reason. In the end, it is a misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research, and nasty misrepresentation of key charismatic leaders. Unlike many, I do not question Hanegraaff's motives, but his zeal has blinded him from taking the path of principled Christian discourse.

Counterfeit Revival is an indictment composed of hundreds of specific assertions about individuals and groups. These claims cannot be accepted or rejected in toto; each must be weighed on its merits. In the scope of this review, it is possible only to give representative examples of Hanegraaff's failure to take account of evidence that contradicts his sweeping claims.

Consider, for example, Hanegraaff's assertion that Howard-Browne denies the deity of Christ in order to elevate himself: a damning charge indeed, if true. But in a 1995 published interview with me, the South African evangelist explained his one controversial statement on the topic and clearly affirmed orthodox doctrine.

Similarly, Todd Hunter, the national coordinator of the Vineyard, is targeted for a four-sentence statement he made in a 1994 sermon about three controversial Pentecostal healers. This becomes the centerpiece for an entire chapter in which Hanegraaff trashes Hunter by linking him with the worst excesses of these healers. Hunter phoned and wrote Hanegraaff just as the book was going to press to say that he deplored the very sins and falsehoods catalogued in Counterfeit Revival and explicitly denied Hanegraaff's interpretation of his statement. Despite that clarification, Hanegraaff did not modify his attack on Hunter in subsequent printings.

In chapter 14, John Wimber is targeted for prophetic views that he has not held since 1991, ones that he has publicly acknowledged as the biggest mistake of his ministry, while his crucial decision to disaffiliate the Toronto Airport Vineyard from the Association of Vineyard Churches is relegated to an endnote. Hanegraaff has 46 references to Wimber's tapes and writings, but there is only one reference from the last six years! Fully half of all the references concern Hanegraaff's critique of a 1981 tape series expressing views that Wimber no longer holds.

Counterfeit Revival also attacks Wimber for his association with Lonnie Frisbee, a former Jesus People evangelist. Hanegraaff refers to a 1979 service where Wimber "turned his church into a laboratory and his church members into guinea pigs. Tragically, the 'lab technician' who experimented on them that night was a hypnotist struggling with homosexuality. In 1995 he died of AIDS."

The evening service in question was on Mother's Day in 1980, not in 1979. Frisbee died in 1993, not 1995. Frisbee dabbled in hypnotism when he was a hippie but totally repudiated it after his conversion. What Hanegraaff neglects to mention is that Frisbee, in spite of homosexual tendencies, was a formative influence on Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie, and other Calvary Chapel pastors besides Wimber. At Frisbee's funeral, held at the Crystal Cathedral, Chuck Smith referred to him as one like Samson. That image is a lot more gracious and redemptive than the one used to malign John Wimber.

Hanegraaff demonizes Wimber and Hunter by using their words to paint them as Quaker-like subjectivists who value the inner light over Scripture, a stance that Jonathan Edwards calls the view of Satan himself. Hanegraaff shows bad faith in reading their comments in the worst light, failing to cite their clear and repeated declarations of biblical authority and inerrancy, and refusing to alter his text in response to Hunter's letter of clarification.

Of course, Hanegraaff's whole argument topples if Counterfeit Revival readers find out that Wimber, Hunter, Arnott, Clark, Howard-Browne, and company all believe, despite their errors and excesses, in the authority of Scripture and in the essentials of the gospel. That Hanegraaff has chosen to ignore every bit of evidence that these men have been used by God to bring sinners to Calvary and weary believers to refreshment is very distressing.

Reviewed by James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Ontario Theological Seminary in Toronto, Canada, and author of HOLY LAUGHTER & THE TORONTO BLESSING (Zondervan) and Revival Wars: A Critique of Counterfeit Revival (Toronto: Evangelical Research Ministries). more at:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/7ta/7ta059.html

I've also read bits and pieces of this book Andrew.  I found the same problem as in the other one.  Selective quoting and misleading from what "was really said".

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Originally posted by Apologist
Once again you misrepresent people. I did NOT attack the "preachers" of the WOF, I attacked their teachings. You obviously don't know the difference.

What I'd like to know is why this forum allows WOF proponents to participate? This is a forum for Christians only and the word of faith movement does not fall under the definition of historic Christianity.

It teaches a metaphysical construct repackaged for Christian consumption.

See, you are saying we are not saved!  As Andrew suggested, I'd suggest you contact Erwin too.

And, whose history are you reading?  All the Apostles believed the Word. 

 

[MizDoulos]

Reminder:&nbsp&nbspLet's not revert to attacking each other's faith or judging each other. Be objective and keep on topic. You may post your objections regarding the writings of other people, but do not put down their denomination or belief system. This goes for those on both sides of the issue.

If the disharmony continues, the thread will be closed and/or warnings issued.

Thank you.


[notroll][/notroll]

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Quaffer
As Andrew suggested, I'd suggest you contact Erwin too.

I already did.

And, whose history are you reading?  All the Apostles believed the Word. 

You are correct, the Apostles believed the Word.
They did NOT believe that faith is a force and by your words you can create your own reality. That is metaphysical, not biblical.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Quaffer
Why? So I can hear good splicing techniques? 

That's quite an accusation. Can you back that up with facts or are you bearing false witness against another believer?

Even if the accused had their sermons given in entirety, would that excuse the book form that has them quoted innacurately?

That is a smokescreen to the real question....Is there teaching biblical?

If it isn't then I would hope the people who listen to this teaching admit it is wrong.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Quaffer

People from the opposite opinion barely got questions out of their mouth and he was yelling at them and calling them names. 

I'd sure like to know what show that was. I have been listening to him for about 7 years every day and I have yet to hear him be nothing but courteous and one of the most patient people I have heard. Sure, at times he gets a bit upset at other people's arguments but don't we all?

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Quaffer
Typical tactics?  Until now, we've withheld.  We are not attacking HH, we're attacking his book and his tapes and any other form of attack on the brethren he uses. 

A post was made about a lawsuit against Hank. Is that not getting personal instead of addressing the real questions?

That is an ad hominem attack to deter from the real issues.

Very few, if any of the WOF teachers even bother to answer the accusations made against them. . .why?. . .because their being screamed at before they can even finish their defense.  They just leave it in the Lord's hands.  He says "vengence is Mine".

Actually the WoF teachers have been asked to discuss these issues with Christian organizations and they refuse. All they do is say, "Don't touch God's annointed" as if it were some mantra. I find it odd that the Apostle Paul commended the Bereans for checking his teachings out, but some of the WoF teachers are not.

 

[Andrew]

Actually the WoF teachers have been asked to discuss these issues with Christian organizations and they refuse. All they do is say, "Don't touch God's annointed" as if it were some mantra. I find it odd that the Apostle Paul commended the Bereans for checking his teachings out, but some of the WoF teachers are not.

that's becos they are out to tear down and ridicule (not check out and discuss) WOF, so why waste time. and they answer to God, not man. And God is able to make them stand.

Go to any WOF critic's site and first thing they do is start calling it heresy, heretical, false teachers, false prophets etc etc naming names, ridiculing them etc. they've already judged these people and their doctrines and demonic and from hell, so what's there to discuss??

Me attack, HH? Personally, I got nothing agst that man, i just wanted to show that he aint some angel from heaven with the truth and nothing but the truth, and everyone else is wrong. I also wanted to show that he does quote WOF people out of context and leave out their right of reply just so he can prove his 'point'.

He's been called a heretic for preaching OSAS. But that's one area I agree with him

 

[Andrew]

WOF a movt and not a denom?

WHO CARES!? truth is, Pentecostals, charismatics, non-denom churches do follow many of WOF teachings whether directly or directly. my church is not WOF but we teach many of WOF principles becos we see it in the Bible.

so if you want to hit out at WOF and its teachings, you will be hitting out at a lot of charismatics, pentecostals, non-denoms Christians.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Andrew

He's been called a heretic for preaching OSAS. But that's one area I agree with him

Teaching OSAS is not something that falls under the catagory of heretical.

It is a secondary issue and not an essential doctrine as is the Trinity, Deity of Christ, Virgin birth, etc.

 

[Outspoken]

"WOF a movt and not a denom? "

Well it pretty much deflates the problem here.

"so why waste time."

Jesus never refused to talk to people he knew what wrong. The rich young man for instance.

 

[Andrew]

btw: there are churches called Word of Faith, like

Word of Faith Christian Church in South Africa
http://www.keepintouch.org.za/Word Of Faith/Where_are_we.htm

so denom or movt, who cares

Teaching OSAS is not something that falls under the catagory of heretical.

oh yes it is much more so! than positive confession or faith for healing issues cos it deals with salvation, grace and the Gospel. things Paul was faithfully defending agst the heretics.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Andrew


oh yes it is much more so! than positive confession or faith for healing issues cos it deals with salvation, grace and the Gospel. things Paul was faithfully defending agst the heretics.

Can a person go to heaven if they believe in OSAS?

Can a person go to heaven if they do not believe in OSAS?

The answer to both is yes. It is not an acid test for orthodoxy and is not an essential doctrine.
That was my point.