Benn Hinn on Dateline

With the exception of Billy Graham, I am highly skeptical of televangelists such as Benny Hinn. That is the legacy of Swaggart and Bakker, and I don't generally trust them.

Diane

Gold Dragon said:

Maybe I'll just get tomatoes in return.

Click to expand...

I honestly believe God wants us to get back to what the Bible says, rather than following what men, traditions, or various theological constructs say. I've found an appalling amount of Biblical illiteracy, from those who have been in church most of their lives. If we don't know the truth well, then half-truths will sound plausible.

I have a site bookmarked that has some of what Hinn has said in the past. If what is on this site it true, he is not a minister of God's word. However, I don't have the resources to check out each quote, and you know how trustworthy something is on the net. But he has shown himself to be a false prophet, that much I've heard myself.

Matthew 7:21, 21"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

What Benny Hinn does with these "miracles" means very little because of the above verse. Doing the will of the Father is more important than prophesizing or healing.

Also, just to be picky, but I wish someone would explain to Mr. Hinn that the hymn "How Great Thou Art" was not written about him. It makes me sick to here him come out to that song with his hands lifted up. He reminds me of a professional wrestler honestly.

I don't follow Hinn or any other televangelist for that matter, but I really don't agree with what I see from him.

Gold Dragon said:

Iollian, I would vouch for you being orthodox in your theological positions, from what you've shared with us so far, despite our run-ins in the past.

Click to expand...

Thanks Gold Dragon

GreenEyedLady said:

Iollian, No offense twords you. I just think his ministry is bogus as can be.
GEL

Click to expand...

No offence taken, i know Hinn is very controversal.

Wilfred of Ivanhoe said:

Well put, I was thinking something like that myself.

Also, mine and Lockheed's negative comments are not, I believe, meant to be personal attacks agaisnt Iollain or any other true believer. More like it is a warning that signs and wonders must not be the means of judging a teacher's doctrine, but how it stands against the Bible. A perverse person should not be followed and considered orthodox due to miracles. I was thinking on the greatnes of God that He does, ironically, use false ministers for His ultimate purpose of bringing His sheep into the flock. I think that is a wonderful thing.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that i mention Hinn and i will get some strong posts i didn't walk into this thread blinded to that fact. I know it's not a personal attack. I'm just not totally convinced that Hinn is not working for God dispite his bad rep, is all. I don't follow him, i don't even turn on the tv to watch him on purpose, my idea of tv watching is channel surfing and not very often i run into anything i will watch anyways. Every time i do watch Hinn i have looked for faults in what he says.

Lockheed said:

This is just a copy/paste of the 'four spiritual laws' kinda stuff... and I disagree with the placement of Step 1 & 2. Step 2 should be step 1. See, yes God loves "the world" and sent His Son to redeem it, but God says He HATES the sinner too. (Psa 5:5) God's is angry with sinners EVERY day.



Actually the solution to sin is punishment through death and hell. Not "separation". Why are we so hesitant to talk about hell?



No, Christ didn't "bridge the gap" making it possible for you to walk to God. He supernaturaly transfers His people from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light through His work, and His work alone. Christ didn't make us saveable, He SAVES.



Apart from the fact that Rev 3:20 is NOT an evangelistic passage... No one seeks after God, no one is righteous! It is God who "receives us" into His kingdom. We are to repent, acknowledge we're sinners and trust in Christ. This idea that "sinner's prayer = salvation" is unbiblical.

Now, as to my original question, please quote Hinn, not his website.

Click to expand...

You are a very picky feller Lockhead.

Iollain,

You are a very picky feller Lockhead.

Click to expand...

I must be. Knowing how easy it was for the churches of the first century to drift away from the Apostle's teaching, I am intently concerned for the churches of this century and the people therein. False teaching doesn't usually announce its falsehood with spotlights and the like, it usually comes masquereding as something trustworthy.

This is why the Galatians were "so easily" drawn away from the simple Gospel that Paul taught them into legalism, and why the author of Hebrews warns us all of the potential for "drift". These subtle differences in the the message of the Gospel is how men want to twist the message to have broader appeal or to be less offensive. Yet unless we preach the Gospel message in its full strength and full offensiveness, we are disobedient to Him we call our Lord.

Thus it is not only semantics when people change "hell" to separation and start evangelistic messages with "God loves you", it is really man telling God that His message isn't good enough and telling the sinner that there is some 'redeeming quality' in them.

The Bible says it clearly, God is angry with sinners all the time and will soon send His Son to judge this world with vengence and wrath, the only escape from this wrath to come is through faith in Christ.

God is not "knocking on the door" of people's hearts, that verse in Rev 3 is so misused. No instead God stands in judgment of the world and its sin, ready to punish every form of unrighteousness with the fires of hell. This, not "God loves you" is the motivation for repentance. God loves His sheep, God loves His church, God loves His 'elect' but those enemies of His, God hates. Praise God that He saves us, while we were yet enemies because of His Son, Jesus and supernaturally transfers us from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

As I said, Christ didn't "bridge the gap". He grabbed us by the hand and pulled us across, for left to our own devices we would never.

It is not because of something we did, some decision we made but because of God's grace toward us... de-merited favor. Favor we not only didn't deserve but did everything in rebellion to prove we weren't worthy of.

This is the marvelous message of the Gospel, the good news of salvation. That God stooped so low as to send His Son to mingle with us lowly, murderous rebels and save us while we were yet sinners.

Lockheed,
But consider that God is Love. I was drawn to Jesus by His unconditional love He shows us at the cross, hell had not a lot to do with it.

I think God did 'bridge the gap', because if Jesus had not died for our sins, we would have fallen strait into the 'gap' which is hell. Though i do agree with your 'pulling us over' as well. You can also look at 'bridge the gap' as separation from God.

I think Rev 3:20 is talking about knocking on the door of people's hearts.

Rev 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Anyways, don't think i totally disagree with you.

Lockheed said:

Thus it is not only semantics when people change "hell" to separation and start evangelistic messages with "God loves you", it is really man telling God that His message isn't good enough and telling the sinner that there is some 'redeeming quality' in them. .

Click to expand...

[note: this is a rabbit trail and as such might warrant a new thread]Didn’t Jesus say He came to save and not condemn? Where does Jesus present the Gospel as “you don’t want to go to Hell do you?” (which it seems, forgive me if I’m wrong, referring to)

Lockheed said:

The Bible says it clearly, God is angry with sinners all the time and will soon send His Son to judge this world with vengence and wrath, the only escape from this wrath to come is through faith in Christ.

Click to expand...

So that whole “while we were yet sinners” deal that Paul told the Romans and John 3:16 “God so loves the world…….” don’t apply? And where does Jesus in the Gospel’s present the Gospel as “turn to me or else?” (which I agree is the end result)

Anyway, like I said, this is a rabbit trail and way off topic, so this might warrant a new thread………….

Diane_Windsor said:

With the exception of Billy Graham, I am highly skeptical of televangelists such as Benny Hinn. That is the legacy of Swaggart and Bakker, and I don't generally trust them.

Diane

Click to expand...

I'm highly skeptical of Billy Graham, too. I participated as a "counsellor" in one of his crusades, and millions of dollars were raised to bring the crusade to our town. Most of it was spent on salaries for his staff.

The attendence numbers were fudged (Each night there were about 5,000 to 8,000 people, but Graham's publicity claimed there were 30,000 to 35,000 each night), and the numbers of people "saved" were inflated (cards were received for 3,000 new believers, but Graham's PR staff reported something like 28,000 new believers). All but two of the people I talked to were already confessing Christians before the crusade. The other two just came to see what goes on at a crusade.

On follow up reports, only about 30 of the new believers were still going to church a year later. We raised $6 million to bring the crusade to town, and only 30 people made lasting commitments to Christ. Graham's people admit this is about average.

I can't help but feel if we had put even $3 million into a media campaign, it would have been a better investment than having a crusade.

Iollain said:

I was actually healed by God when Benny Hinn was talking to the tv audience. You know the 'there is a person who has...whatever...God is healing that'? I had an open sore on my back for about a year, i was scared to go to the doctor and i was waiting on the Lord to heal it. Anyways Benny Hinn said, 'there is someone out there with a sore on their back for a long time, they are afraid to go to the doctor, God is healing that now' i just knew he was talking about me. Within 4 days it dried up, healed and literally fell off. I don't know why an evangelist on tv was used to give me the word that God was healing me, but i presume it is because i cannot cast the healing off as 'well it just happened to heal'

Click to expand...

amen

lambslove said:

I'm highly skeptical of Billy Graham, too. I participated as a "counsellor" in one of his crusades, and millions of dollars were raised to bring the crusade to our town. Most of it was spent on salaries for his staff.

The attendence numbers were fudged (Each night there were about 5,000 to 8,000 people, but Graham's publicity claimed there were 30,000 to 35,000 each night), and the numbers of people "saved" were inflated (cards were received for 3,000 new believers, but Graham's PR staff reported something like 28,000 new believers). All but two of the people I talked to were already confessing Christians before the crusade. The other two just came to see what goes on at a crusade.

On follow up reports, only about 30 of the new believers were still going to church a year later. We raised $6 million to bring the crusade to town, and only 30 people made lasting commitments to Christ. Graham's people admit this is about average.

I can't help but feel if we had put even $3 million into a media campaign, it would have been a better investment than having a crusade.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that sharing lambslove. I'm curious. Was this near the end of Billy Graham's career?

I suspect the crusade model began to die down in effectiveness in the eighties but the crusade machine was still going full speed.

I do have several people in my church who made their first real commitment to Christ in a Billy Graham crusade, even if they were exposed to Christianity some time before. Many left the church for a period because of poor followup and discipleship, but eventually returned for one reason or another, thanks be to God.

It was in the mid-90s.

I agree that the crusade-style of evangelism isn't effective anymore, especially when you consider the money that it takes to put one on.

I don't understand why Christians don't use the media more to spread the gospel. It's relatively cheap and easily accessible to the whole population. It would be a great way to send out the message, but we just don't use it. There are some feel-good commercials touting one denom over others, but no one is using it at all to spead the gospel.

Why do you suppose that is?

lambslove said:

It was in the mid-90s.

I agree that the crusade-style of evangelism isn't effective anymore, especially when you consider the money that it takes to put one on.

I don't understand why Christians don't use the media more to spread the gospel. It's relatively cheap and easily accessible to the whole population. It would be a great way to send out the message, but we just don't use it. There are some feel-good commercials touting one denom over others, but no one is using it at all to spead the gospel.

Why do you suppose that is?

Click to expand...

LOL!! Feel good commercials that talk about how nice a denom is. Isn't that the truth? There is no knowlege, there is only emotion.

Of course, you can go to the extreme like Family Radio and tell people not to attend church but to gather your family around the radio on Sunday mornings....

lambslove said:

I don't understand why Christians don't use the media more to spread the gospel. It's relatively cheap and easily accessible to the whole population. It would be a great way to send out the message, but we just don't use it. There are some feel-good commercials touting one denom over others, but no one is using it at all to spead the gospel.

Click to expand...

Commercials compound all the problems of crusades even more. The one-way short message that doesn't get any followup and isn't modeled by any person.

I have seen some pretty effective highway ads. One of them was from a RC convent of all places.

Iollain said:

I was actually healed by God when Benny Hinn was talking to the tv audience. You know the 'there is a person who has...whatever...God is healing that'? I had an open sore on my back for about a year, i was scared to go to the doctor and i was waiting on the Lord to heal it. Anyways Benny Hinn said, 'there is someone out there with a sore on their back for a long time, they are afraid to go to the doctor, God is healing that now' i just knew he was talking about me. Within 4 days it dried up, healed and literally fell off. I don't know why an evangelist on tv was used to give me the word that God was healing me, but i presume it is because i cannot cast the healing off as 'well it just happened to heal'

Click to expand...

wow, that is amazing!!!!!!! I guess when the Holy Spirit wants to heal someone, there aint no stopping him!!!

Gold Dragon said:

Commercials expound all the problems of crusades even more. The one-way short message that doesn't get any followup and isn't modeled by any person.

I have seen some pretty effective highway ads. One of them was from a RC convent of all places.

Click to expand...

There are gigantic boatloads of people who have never heard any form of the Gospel. TV, radio and print ads are imperfect, but better than letting people go to hell. I got saved from listening to Christian radio, but Christian music radio, with its artificial sweetness, turns people off before they can even hear the good news. I'm talking about high-quality presentations of the gospel on non-Chrisitan stations in the form of advertising, and also in print in non-Christian publications. Sure, there might be obstacles, but its better to work to overcome those than to just let people burn.

lambslove said:

There are gigantic boatloads of people who have never heard any form of the Gospel. TV, radio and print ads are imperfect, but better than letting people go to hell. I got saved from listening to Christian radio, but Christian music radio, with its artificial sweetness, turns people off before they can even hear the good news. I'm talking about high-quality presentations of the gospel on non-Chrisitan stations in the form of advertising, and also in print in non-Christian publications. Sure, there might be obstacles, but its better to work to overcome those than to just let people burn.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I guess there are a couple of obstacles, both relating to money.

1) It takes money to buy advertising spots.

2) Advertising is associated with making sales and money. Christianity on TV and radio already have a negative stigma of being "after people's money".

I think it is great that there are good folks on radio and television making use of those media to reach the lost. The challenge is doing it well and doing it right.

Gold Dragon said:

Agreed. I guess there are a couple of obstacles, both relating to money.

1) It takes money to buy advertising spots.

2) Advertising is associated with making sales and money. Christianity on TV and radio already have a negative stigma of being "after people's money".

I think it is great that there are good folks on radio and television making use of those media to reach the lost. The challenge is doing it well and doing it right.

Click to expand...

Amen! But I think we as Christians ought to be using the media to its best advantage. We need to find money (come on, we all have a little bit of money to put to such an effort) and people (there are many Christians in the media industry) to make it work.

What happens when the world comes to its end and we are standing in front of the Lord and he asks why we didn't evangelize more, and we say, well, it's hard to get the word out, and he asks, why didn't use use the media, everyone got their message out on the media but you.