Question about Hanegraf?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

i know that there can be differences in the body of Christ, and that is understandable, etc. and we can vehemently disagree with teachings. but for me, i was very saddened when i read the majority of one of hank's books. he doesn't just challenge a particular teaching, but also assaults the "person", attacking the pitch/sound of their voice, calling them names, such as "so and so" wanna-be, etc. i find that to be offensive, and dont believe it serves any purpose, nor does it defend the gospel.

and sadly many who challenge the concept of God wanting His kids blessed and prospered never seem to apply the "rule of poverty" to themselves but rather "just to the body" and to the person whom they are criticizing.

i find hank's writings have a very mean slant, unrelated to the issues which he challenges.

That's why he is an arrant fool who is all head and no heart.

 

[Alpine]

I used to listen to him despite disagreeing with some of his views. He always made it clear he wasn't against pentecostals/charismatics but he was against the word of faith movement.

 

[Andrew]

Mr. Hanegraf is against all Pentecostals, including AoG. He somehow feels it's his "ministry" to root out and tear down what he feels is wrong in denominations, but leaves the soul-winning to someone else. I wonder if he would judge his own child as harshly, if God ever lead that child into Pentecostalism?

I pity his family and friends.

 

[TreeOfLife]

That's why he is an arrant fool who is all head and no heart.

How is this any different?

 

[12volt_man]

I make absolutely no apology for my remarks about Hanegraf, on this thread and the other one where I made a longer post.

Maybe you shouldn't apologize, but repent.

There's a very angry and judgemental tone in your posts.

The Bible tells us that there is a time to be angry, but it also tells us that we are to "be angry and sin not".

To be honest, your posts have a lot of the same things you're accusing Hannegraaf of.

We have to make a decision at some point as to whose side we are on. If we truly believe that the Pentecostal/Charismatic experience is what God is doing in the church today, then we need to stand up for it and defend it, instead of going around deferring and simpering to its critics and enemies.

I'm a charismatic (and, yes, I know that I'm going to be told that I'm not a "real charismatic"), but I don't see anything in scripture to suggest that the charismatic movement is above criticism.

If the Bible tells us that false teachers and destructive heresies will enter the church, then why should we believe that we're exempt?

If you truly believe that, then you're not defending the charismatic/pentecostal movement, you're throwing it out to the wolves.

If you love the charismatic movement as you say you do, and which I believe you do, then please join me and others in examining it honestly.

God knows, I'm no defender of Hannegraaf and I've made my problems with him clear here, but the truth is, there is a lot of truth in what he's saying, even if he is going about saying it the wrong way.

I don't care how 'Christian' this guy is. If he is saying derogatory things against any part of the Pentecostal movement, he is speaking against the Holy Spirit who brought it about.

Where in the Bible are we told that something is beyond criticism because the Holy Spirit brought it about?

I mean, I believe that the Holy Spirit brought about the NT church, but that doesn't stop Paul from calling them out when they're in error.

Sure, some Pentecostals are making mistakes, but that gives Hanegraf no right to say the things he says about it.

Actually, he does. He may be going about it in a bad way, but the Bible does call us to speak out against false doctrine.

A "mistake" is when the kid at McDonalds forgets to put your fries in your bag at the drive through.

What Hannegraaf is talking about is false doctrines and false prophecies in the church, which the Bible does tell us to speak out against.

Whose side are we on? Are we on the Lord's side or not?

If we're on the Lord's side, then let's stand up for His word and His church and not stand by silently when He has called us to speak.

Let's stop pandering to the dead, powerless, disobedient people who are going around pretending to be Christians - who have a form of godliness but are denying its power.

I don't know that that's fair of you to question his Christianity.

The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians that when he went to visit their church he was not interested in those who had empty words - he wanted to see those who operated in the power of God.

So, how are we going to know who is or who isn't "operating in the power of God" if we don't compare their teachings and their acts in light of scripture?

Today, the power of God is working within the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches (like it or not), and anyone who criticises it is being disobedient to God.

So then, why does God command us to test these things?

That doesn't make sense, that He would command us to do something that would be disobedient to Him.

And anyone who is being habitually disobedient cannot have any share in the power of God.

But the point could be made that you're being disobedient in your posts.

So I will say quite definitely, and I don't care what others think, that Hanegraf is totally devoid of the power of God, and his ministry and writing are just empty words that will just fall to the ground, and will keep doing so until he repents of his criticism of Pentecostals and issues a strong statement to that effect.

Similar things were said about some prophets in the Bible.

 

[Christina M]

i know that there can be differences in the body of Christ, and that is understandable, etc. and we can vehemently disagree with teachings. but for me, i was very saddened when i read the majority of one of hank's books. he doesn't just challenge a particular teaching, but also assaults the "person", attacking the pitch/sound of their voice, calling them names, such as "so and so" wanna-be, etc. i find that to be offensive, and dont believe it serves any purpose, nor does it defend the gospel.

and sadly many who challenge the concept of God wanting His kids blessed and prospered never seem to apply the "rule of poverty" to themselves but rather "just to the body" and to the person whom they are criticizing.

i find hank's writings have a very mean slant, unrelated to the issues which he challenges.

Ditto.
Ditto
Ditto.

Why does Hanky have so much trouble with a prosperity message.... it seems to have worked for himself.

 

[AudioArtist]

I don't mind him peacefully and logically highlighting problems within the charismatic movement. That is absolutely fine, and very neccessary.

He doesn't do that, though.

 

[dignitized]

Is it true that Hanegraf is against all Pentecostals? Even AOG ?
I thought he was only against WOF people?
I've never read anything by him and never will if I can help it but I've read what other people have posted regarding what he supposedly has said.

I can't stand the guy personally. He is a shameless self promoter - he does not allow anyone on his radio show who could refute him intelligently - he comes out against anything that is not mainstream protestant - and is very legalistic. It kills me every evening at 6:00 were I’m at to have to listen to the radio. The talk station I listen to most of the day switches to sports - there’s nothing but liberals on the AM stations - and the Christian station put on “the Bible Answer Man.”

 

[12volt_man]

he does not allow anyone on his radio show who could refute him intelligently

Actually, he used to.

They used to have great guests and debates on the show. I saw Hannegraaf get his clock cleaned several times.

He used to Ron Rhoades and Elliot Miller in studio with him as co-hosts and the conversations between the three of them were great to listen to.

The show wasn't always the way it is now and it certainly wasn't like this when Walter Martin did it. Having a "six degrees of Walter Martin" kind of relationship with CRI, it really pains me to see what the show has become and I worry about Hank, personally.

Somewhere, and I don't know what caused this, the show became more about Hannegraaf and whatever he is selling this week and much less about a great discussion of Christian apologetics.

If you never heard the show back in those days, that's really too bad. You missed a great show that I'm sure you would have enjoyed.

 

[12volt_man]

Why does Hank have so much trouble with a prosperity message.... it seems to have worked for himself.

While I don't agree with the means he's used to become prosperous, who has he ever criticized for being prosperous?

 

[dignitized]

Actually, he used to.

They used to have great guests and debates on the show. I saw Hannegraaf get his clock cleaned several times.

I doubt that that was all that hard to do.

He used to Ron Rhoades and Elliot Miller in studio with him as co-hosts and the conversations between the three of them were great to listen to.

I'm not familiar with either of the two you mention - but anything would be better than listening to Hank tell us how right we are ***IF*** we agree with HIM!

The show wasn't always the way it is now and it certainly wasn't like this when Walter Martin did it. Having a "six degrees of Walter Martin" kind of relationship with CRI, it really pains me to see what the show has become and I worry about Hank, personally.

Somewhere, and I don't know what caused this, the show became more about Hannegraaf and whatever he is selling this week and much less about a great discussion of Christian apologetics.

If you never heard the show back in those days, that's really too bad. You missed a great show that I'm sure you would have enjoyed.

Quite possible. But it's not something I enjoy today that's for sure.

 

[12volt_man]

I'm not familiar with either of the two you mention

I'm not really sure what Elliot Miller is up to these days, but Ron Rhoades has an outstanding ministry called Reasoning From the Scriptures.

Quite possible. But it's not something I enjoy today that's for sure.

Neither do I and I'm not nearly as annoyed about him, so much as I am annoyed that he ruined a great show.

Although I really don't listen to the show, I will turn it on every now and then, just to see what he's up to.

I honestly can't remember the last time that the show wasn't one big infomercial for some product he's selling.

 

[Jesusong]

I'm not really sure what Elliot Miller is up to these days,

Elliot Miller is the editor of the Christian Research Journal which is a quarterly magazine publication of CRI. Hank has him on at least once a month to push the magazine.

Most of the Bible Answer Man broadcasts seem to be infomercials than anything else.

 

[JimB]

NO, they DIDN'T !!!!

Yes they did.

Galatians 2 11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you[b] compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Acts 15 36Sometime later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let's go back and visit the Lord's followers in the cities where we preached his message. Then we will know how they are doing." 37Barnabas wanted to take along John, whose other name was Mark. 38But Paul did not want to, because Mark had left them in Pamphylia and had stopped working with them. 39Paul and Barnabas argued, then each of them went his own way. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, 40but Paul took Silas and left after the followers had placed them in God's care. 41They traveled through Syria and Cilicia, encouraging the churches.




\o/

 

[JimB]

From what I gather, Hammerin’Hank has a lot of unresolved anger issues. What I want to know, from my Calvary Chapel friends, is if they agree with Hank. I wouldn’t think so, but … I understand he is a member of the mother church of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa CA.

\o/

 

[12volt_man]

From what I gather, Hammerin’Hank has a lot of unresolved anger issues. What I want to know, from my Calvary Chapel friends, is if they agree with Hank. I wouldn’t think so, but … I understand he is a member of the mother church of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa CA.

I'm not a CC person, but I am authorized to preach in their churches and I am in a close partnership with CC churches, so I know their theology pretty well.

I can't think of anything your average CC person would say that they disagree with, doctrinally, even if they might have some problems with his personality and financial issues.

I don't believe that there's anything I disagree with him on, doctrinally. Certainly no essentials.

 

[Questioning Christian]

It was a joke, Jim, a joke. Did you read the rest of what I wrote further down?

Yes they did.

Galatians 2 11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you[b] compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Acts 15 36Sometime later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let's go back and visit the Lord's followers in the cities where we preached his message. Then we will know how they are doing." 37Barnabas wanted to take along John, whose other name was Mark. 38But Paul did not want to, because Mark had left them in Pamphylia and had stopped working with them. 39Paul and Barnabas argued, then each of them went his own way. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, 40but Paul took Silas and left after the followers had placed them in God's care. 41They traveled through Syria and Cilicia, encouraging the churches.




\o/

 

[Questioning Christian]

Does anyone care to address my post up there:

______________________

There are holes and inconsistencies to Double H's [not to be confused with TRIPLE H] opponents. I am one who would readily point out error in ANY teacher or preacher.

But I have a problem with a person who uses an anti-prosperity message as a capstone of his foundation of teaching, but who receives an annual salary in excess of $280,000.00

$280,000.00 per year breaks down to:

• $5600.00 per week
• $1120.00 per day
• $140.00 per hour

I have a major problem with someone who is supposed to be the head of a "ministry" that specializes in critiquing exorbitant salaries, who himself is in receipt of in excess of a quarter of a million dollars per annum.

What a hypocrite!

That salary does not even include per diem pay, travel expenses, living expenses, speaking engagements, entertainment expense accounts, book deals, or anything else which may come as an accoutrement to this ministry.

Hank, please, don't make me throw up.

 

[JimB]

It was a joke, Jim, a joke. Did you read the rest of what I wrote further down?

Man, QC, I missed that. Sorry. I usually pride myself in having a sense of humor but that one got by me.

\o/

 

[Questioning Christian]

That's cool