Quote from Hank Hanegraaff - Let's Discuss

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

Just browsing through my precious copy of Christianity in Crisis and decided I'd like to discuss this statement he (or one of his ghost writers/researchers) wrote:

I want to stress that sincere and dedicated believers can differ in good conscience when it comes to peripheral issues. They cannot do so, however, when it comes to the primary doctrines that separate Christianity from the kingdom of the cults. When it comes to such matters as the fabric of faith, the nature of God, and the atonement of Christ, there must be unity. As Saint Augustine so aptly put it: "In essentials, unity, in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

For the most part, charismatics and noncharismatics are unified when it comes to the essentials of the historic Christian faith. Their primary differences involve nonessential Christian doctrine. Therefore while we my vigorously debate secondary matters within the faith, we must never divide over them.

Not so, however, when it comes to the Faith Movement, there we must draw the line. The Faith Movement has systematically subverted the very essence of Christianity so as to present us with a counterfeit Christ and a counterfeit Christianity. Therefore, standing against the theology of the faith movement does not divide; rather, it unites believers. (pp. 47, 48)

Now I know that most, if not all of you anti-wofers have read this book. This book may have even helped to fuel your antagonism towards the movement. Here are some questions that I want to discuss:

1. Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one

)

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims? Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

Let's discuss.

JTM3 · Jun 8, 2007

victoryword said:
Just browsing through my precious copy of Christianity in Crisis and decided I'd like to discuss this statement he (or one of his ghost writers/researchers) wrote:
I want to stress that sincere and dedicated believers can differ in good conscience when it comes to peripheral issues. They cannot do so, however, when it comes to the primary doctrines that separate Christianity from the kingdom of the cults. When it comes to such matters as the fabric of faith, the nature of God, and the atonement of Christ, there must be unity. As Saint Augustine so aptly put it: "In essentials, unity, in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

For the most part, charismatics and noncharismatics are unified when it comes to the essentials of the historic Christian faith. Their primary differences involve nonessential Christian doctrine. Therefore while we my vigorously debate secondary matters within the faith, we must never divide over them.

Not so, however, when it comes to the Faith Movement, there we must draw the line. The Faith Movement has systematically subverted the very essence of Christianity so as to present us with a counterfeit Christ and a counterfeit Christianity. Therefore, standing against the theology of the faith movement does not divide; rather, it unites believers. (pp. 47, 48)
Now I know that most, if not all of you anti-wofers have read this book. This book may have even helped to fuel your antagonism towards the movement. Here are some questions that I want to discuss:

1. Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one

)

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims? Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

Let's discuss.

1.What essentials have we supposedly rejected? I affirm the deity of Christ, His resurrection, his imminent return, the Triune nature of the Godhead, and that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him and Him alone.

2. Depends on how you define "kingdom of the cults."

3. No.

4. Yes; I think mainline traditional churches tend to shun and be weary of any sort of moving of the Holy Spirit.

5. What sort of "damage" have we supposedly done?

It is not WoF and never will be WoF people who divide Christianity but hardliners in the mainline traditional camps that despise any new teaching that are causing division.

6. No, that would make him a hypocrite..

jeolmstead · Jun 8, 2007

1.Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

No

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

Some elements of all movements seem to have missed Christ. “Faith Movement” is a broad term. It means different things to different people. I believe that there are many cults that tout Faith, Jesus, and any other Christian principle you can think of and yet their understanding of these principles does not match those laid out in scripture. I do not think that most of the WoF people I’ve know are part of a cult, nor do I think WoF is a cult.

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one )

I don’t understand why this is germane to your argument. In any event, I’m not qualified to speak to what Augustine thought, believed, or taught.

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

I think that currently there is both dis-unity and unity existing between all these groups equally. It seems to vary more on individuals and their own egos as to how important most of these issues are. The fact of the matter is that there is only one Body of Christ and Christ is unified.

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims? Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

No, I would add that WoF has got some things right and some things wrong. (just like everyone else)
Depends on what one means to “Divide” It is good for like minded people to flow together. (Nothing wrong with that) It is however wrong for one group to attack another.

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

No, it’s not justifiable.

As for me I will extend charity to WoF’ers, Hank Hanegraaff, and Augustine and pray that by giving grace and mercy I will gain the same from the One that Matters.

John O.

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

JTM3 said:
1.What essentials have we supposedly rejected? I affirm the deity of Christ, His resurrection, his imminent return, the Triune nature of the Godhead, and that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him and Him alone.

In his book he claims that the WoF deifies man, demotes Christ, denies His deity, introduces New Age philosophy into the church and a number of other charges. Many quotes are given (but I would read his book besides Gregg Huestis' book, "The Other Side of the Coin" since Gregg does an excellent job of showing how Hanegraafff misquotes the teachers).

2. Depends on how you define "kingdom of the cults."

When I have time, I'll quote his description of what it means to be in The Kingdom of the Cults (a phrase borrwed from his predecessor, Walter Martin)

3. No.

4. Yes; I think mainline traditional churches tend to shun and be weary of any sort of moving of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I think Hank was playing on the sympathies of non-wof charismatics by exaggerating the "unity" between them and noncharismatics.

5. What sort of "damage" have we supposedly done?

See my response to number 1 for a brief idea.

It is not WoF and never will be WoF people who divide Christianity but hardliners in the mainline traditional camps that despise any new teaching that are causing division.

Agreed, but more on that later.

6. No, that would make him a hypocrite..

Yep. The thing is that, in spite of Augustine's history, he is still considered "Orthodox" and the WoF is considered heretical, so quoting an othodox against a heretic is acceptable in spite of how bad the orthodox has been.

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

jeolmstead said:
1.Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

No

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

Some elements of all movements seem to have missed Christ. Faith Movement is a broad term. It means different things to different people. I believe that there are many cults that tout Faith, Jesus, and any other Christian principle you can think of and yet their understanding of these principles does not match those laid out in scripture. I do not think that most of the WoF people Ive know are part of a cult, nor do I think WoF is a cult.

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one )

I dont understand why this is germane to your argument. In any event, Im not qualified to speak to what Augustine thought, believed, or taught.

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

I think that currently there is both dis-unity and unity existing between all these groups equally. It seems to vary more on individuals and their own egos as to how important most of these issues are. The fact of the matter is that there is only one Body of Christ and Christ is unified.

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims? Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

No, I would add that WoF has got some things right and some things wrong. (just like everyone else)

Depends on what one means to Divide It is good for like minded people to flow together. (Nothing wrong with that) It is however wrong for one group to attack another.

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

No, its not justifiable.

As for me I will extend charity to WoFers, Hank Hanegraaff, and Augustine and pray that by giving grace and mercy I will gain the same from the One that Matters.

John O.

Thanks for your post John. Allow me to answer you by the "numbers"

2. I agree. Many segments of Evangelicalism could be said to have "cultic" aspects to it, depending on how one defines cultic. A lot of it seems opinionated. Some have claimed cult status for the faith movement because Kenyon and Copeland (and perhaps some others) taught that Jesus took on Satan's nature when He became sin (2 Cor. 5:21). I agree with the critics that this teaching is wrong, however, these same people continue to ignore, dismiss, or excuse the fact that protestant reformer Martin Luther taught that Jesus became and sinner and transgressor on the cross. By this criteria, Protestantism should be considered cultic.

3. It is germane to my argument because this appeal to authority is hypocritical. Should we favorably quote a man who has demonstrated such behavior as an authoritative reference in disputing those we feel have engaged in bad behavior? Why not quote Bertrand Russell favorably or better yet, Adolph Hitler? Is it only because, in spite of Augustine's behavior and wicked teachings he is still considered "orthodox" by so many, and thus is quotable when disputing us cultic WoFers?

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the rest of your post.

Tamara224 · Jun 8, 2007

victoryword said:
Now I know that most, if not all of you anti-wofers have read this book. This book may have even helped to fuel your antagonism towards the movement. Here are some questions that I want to discuss:

By way of preface: I've never even heard of the book. I had never heard of Hanegraaff until I joined CF.

1. Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?

Some WoFers have, but not any more so than any other denomination. IMO, some of the mainstream and/or big-name WoF teachers have rejected some essentials.

2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"

Again, some do. There are extremes in every movement and denomination and those extremes usually do end up being rather cultish.

3. Is Augustine, who introduced baby baptism, forbidding marriage in the priesthood, persecuted the Donatists, etc. the best reference when making a case for kicking a segment of believers out of the body of Christ? (I know some of you Augustinians will give me much grief over this one

)

No. Scripture alone should be our basis for such a radical step. There are several things which Augustine taught with which I take great exception... such as his views on women.

4. Do you believe that he is correct that charismatics and noncharismatics are disputing only over nonessentials? Why? Is there unity or division among non-wof Charismatics and noncharismatics?

Considering the fact that the only real issue of dispute between such broad categories (non-Charismatics and non-WoF Charismatics) is the issue of the charisms... I'd have to say I believe he is correct that they are non-essential.

5. Has the WoF movement done the extent of damage to Christianity that Hanegraaff claims?

Maybe... I don't know what damage he claims the WoF movement has done.

Is it right to DIVIDE over the doctrines in the Charismatic movement?

Maybe, it depends on the doctrine I guess. Do you mean WoF vs. Non-WoF doctrine?

6. Finally, given the last line quoted by Augustine: ".... in all things, charity." Is it justifiable to show no charity to the WoF adherents if we are going to abide by Augustine's advice (which he failed to follow himself)?

It's never justifiable to show no charity to anyone.

JTM3 · Jun 8, 2007

victoryword said:
In his book he claims that the WoF deifies man, demotes Christ, denies His deity, introduces New Age philosophy into the church and a number of other charges. Many quotes are given (but I would read his book besides Gregg Huestis' book, "The Other Side of the Coin" since Gregg does an excellent job of showing how Hanegraafff misquotes the teachers).

Ah, right. I can see where he would think WoF deifies man; I'm still not sure about that teaching

But it is BS to say we deny the deity of Christ.

Yep. The thing is that, in spite of Augustine's history, he is still considered "Orthodox" and the WoF is considered heretical, so quoting an othodox against a heretic is acceptable in spite of how bad the orthodox has been.

Orthodox is overated

Floatingaxe · Jun 8, 2007

I really don't know what all this Word of Faith movement is, except we were told that it is found in the teaching of material prosperity at the expense of all. That would be wrong.

However, Hank Hanegraaff's first two cited paragraphs are absolutely correct.

Maybe someone can direct me to a site where I can be educated on the Word of Faith movement. I am sure it is not a denomination. People I admire in the Lord have been labelled as such, and I totally disagree--heck, I have been labelled as Word of Faith also!---so there is a vehemence about this thing.

Questioning Christian · Jun 8, 2007

"Double H", as I like to call him [as opposed to Triple H], is full of vile bitterness and rancor. I generally disregard what he has to say, after what he has said about and done to others.

Personally, his criticism of others bears no resemblance to Biblical exhortation, but rather to the rantings of the accuser of the brethren.

He lost my ear a long time ago.

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

Tamara224 said:
By way of preface: I've never even heard of the book. I had never heard of Hanegraaff until I joined CF.

That is a surprise. It was the "hot book" of the early 90s and caused quite a stir in the Charismatic Movement. It even won the "Gold Medallion" (whatever that is). This and "Charismatic Chaos" by John MacArthur were two books the caused problems in a Charismatic church I was going to (in which I was an elder) when they came out due to some members in our church reading them and then opposing Charismatic beliefs.

Some WoFers have, but not any more so than any other denomination. IMO, some of the mainstream and/or big-name WoF teachers have rejected some essentials.

Again, some do. There are extremes in every movement and denomination and those extremes usually do end up being rather cultish.

Agreed. You find the loony friinge in ever group of Christians. I have learned to try not judge a group by the loonies but by the overall fruit. Unfortunately, I have seen that many do not think like I think.

I have "Charismatic Chaos" at home for reference purposes, but the book by no means is able to convince me of cessationism. Yet I saw others who actually experienced the charismas reject all of it due to that book. On the other hand, I have been directly opposed by those who were convinced of Mr. Hanegraaff's arguments even though they never once heard me teach things he claims that we do.

People can be intimidated by a scholarly, seemingly well reasoned argument and either cannot or will not check all of the facts before allowing themselves to be convinced.

No. Scripture alone should be our basis for such a radical step. There are several things which Augustine taught with which I take great exception... such as his views on women.

Amen. If we are going to use quotes by fallible men to correct fallible men, a true discerning person will recognize how eak our argument is. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is used only when a person is unable to undergird their argument with SCRIPTURE. It's like building one's house on the sand (Jesus' analogy in Matthew 7).

Yes, I personally take great exception to his baby batismal regeneration teachings, his denial of marriage and sex for clergy, and his violent persecution of those who disagreed with him (though my disagreements are not limited to those alone, I won't get into the others at this point).

Considering the fact that the only real issue of dispute between such broad categories (non-Charismatics and non-WoF Charismatics) is the issue of the charisms... I'd have to say I believe he is correct that they are non-essential.

Well, I do believe that cessationism is a false teaching that makes many churches powerless, but I would not break fellowship with other believers over the issue. Nonetheless, they should not expect me to join their churches and if they invite me to preach in them, I will ask God to move by His power and prove their doctrine wrong.

Unfortunately, such would cause division and I doubt a strictly cessationist congregation would ever invite me to preach

Then again, one may never know.

Maybe... I don't know what damage he claims the WoF movement has done.

See my post to JTM3 for some of it. Some other critics of the Word-Faith Movement actually believe that Mr. Hanegraaff has exaggerated this "Crisis" that the WoF has supposedly caused within Christianity. A good source is Robert Bowman's book, "The Word-Faith Controversy." He worked with HH at CRI and he critiques the WoF but also criticizes how Hanegraaff handled the whole mess.

Maybe, it depends on the doctrine I guess. Do you mean WoF vs. Non-WoF doctrine?

In some sense, yes.

It's never justifiable to show no charity to anyone.

Agreed.

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

JTM3 said:
Ah, right. I can see where he would think WoF deifies man; I'm still not sure about that teaching

But it is BS to say we deny the deity of Christ.

Orthodox is overated

Orthodoxy is VERY overrated.

He misquotes something that Kenneth Copeland said in a prophesy and then claims that Copeland denies Christ's deity. Both James Spencer (Bleeding Hearts and Propaganda) and Gregg Huestis (Another Side of the Coin) shows how Hank is being dishonest in their respective books.

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
I really don't know what all this Word of Faith movement is, except we were told that it is found in the teaching of material prosperity at the expense of all. That would be wrong.

However, Hank Hanegraaff's first two cited paragraphs are absolutely correct.

Maybe someone can direct me to a site where I can be educated on the Word of Faith movement. I am sure it is not a denomination. People I admire in the Lord have been labelled as such, and I totally disagree--heck, I have been labelled as Word of Faith also!---so there is a vehemence about this thing.

Try this site:

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com

victoryword · Jun 8, 2007

Questioning Christian said:
"Double H", as I like to call him [as opposed to Triple H], is full of vile bitterness and rancor. I generally disregard what he has to say, after what he has said about and done to others.

Personally, his criticism of others bears no resemblance to Biblical exhortation, but rather to the rantings of the accuser of the brethren.

He lost my ear a long time ago.

Unfortunately his book still wields some influence among anti-wofers, though nearly not as much as it did back in the early 90s when it first came out. I only give him a listening ear due to the need to address the problems that he sometimes causes.

Nonethelss, the good thing is that, as wrong as he is, he has helped many Faith Teachers to examine their teachings and stop going to extremes in certain areas.

JAS4Yeshua · Jun 8, 2007

I haven't read Christianity in Crisis, but I have read Counterfit Revival. I own both books, though. I also heard him on the Bible Answer Man show. He did come to my old church at one time and taught a message. What was amazing is that he was quoting the passages of Scripture accurately from memory.

Do I agree with everything he states or does? No. What I think is along the lines of what Tamara posted earlier. What I have noticed, listening to his radio program, was that when someone extremely into the WoF would call him and challenge him, he would answer from Scripture and play supporting clips from what the bigger teachers in the movement would say. The response he received was almost always hostile.

Encounters I've had with debating the faith topics also have met with extreme hostility, no matter how nicely the information is presented. There are a couple here that get really upset, while those who are debating it are using God's Word to support their arguments.

Is the WoF movement damaging? Only so far as it isn't spreading or portraying Christ's love, but man's ability to have whatever they want (health, wealth, etc). Of course, the same can be said of other movements and teachings, and isn't indicitive of everyone in the movement.

Floatingaxe · Jun 8, 2007

victoryword said:
Try this site:

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com

Thanks!

Tamara224 · Jun 8, 2007

victoryword said:
That is a surprise. It was the "hot book" of the early 90s and caused quite a stir in the Charismatic Movement. It even won the "Gold Medallion" (whatever that is). This and "Charismatic Chaos" by John MacArthur were two books the caused problems in a Charismatic church I was going to (in which I was an elder) when they came out due to some members in our church reading them and then opposing Charismatic beliefs.

LOL, I was in junior high in the early 90s. No wonder I've never heard of it. The only thing on my mind during that time was the really cute boy in youth group.

People can be intimidated by a scholarly, seemingly well reasoned argument and either cannot or will not check all of the facts before allowing themselves to be convinced.

Very, very true.

Well, I do believe that cessationism is a false teaching that makes many churches powerless, but I would not break fellowship with other believers over the issue. Nonetheless, they should not expect me to join their churches and if they invite me to preach in them, I will ask God to move by His power and prove their doctrine wrong.

Unfortunately, such would cause division and I doubt a strictly cessationist congregation would ever invite me to preach

Then again, one may never know.

I agree. I consider cessationists my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't "break fellowship" with those I disagree with doctrinally because I don't believe that is a biblical basis for doing so. However, I also don't attend their churches. I think it is better for us to part ways (for a time) so as to promote unity. If that makes any sense.

See my post to JTM3 for some of it. Some other critics of the Word-Faith Movement actually believe that Mr. Hanegraaff has exaggerated this "Crisis" that the WoF has supposedly caused within Christianity. A good source is Robert Bowman's book, "The Word-Faith Controversy." He worked with HH at CRI and he critiques the WoF but also criticizes how Hanegraaff handled the whole mess.

I found this quote the other day, and I love it:

There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.

It really undermines an argument when people misrepresent their opponent, lie about them or exaggerate the "harm" it does.

I've seen so many people in this forum say that Hanegraaff does just that. I've never bothered to read anything of his for that reason.

talitha · Jun 8, 2007

I have found another thing I agree with QC on.

Svt4Him · Jun 8, 2007

victoryword said:
Orthodoxy is VERY overrated.

He misquotes something that Kenneth Copeland said in a prophesy and then claims that Copeland denies Christ's deity. Both James Spencer (Bleeding Hearts and Propaganda) and Gregg Huestis (Another Side of the Coin) shows how Hank is being dishonest in their respective books.

There was a post quite a while ago that showed the progress of twisting certain words to misquote then blowing the misquoted person apart. Have you seen it or do you know where it is? I think it was KC that was the target, and when you see the quote in actual context, it means nothing like what HH said.

Questioning Christian · Jun 8, 2007

Double H [once again, I say, not Triple H] uses the modus operandi of cheap shots and sneak attacks. To me, Hank is no different from the attackers of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 - he comes under the guise of peace, and makes civil agreements, then before you turn your back even 90 degrees, there's half a blade in it!

I'd be P.O.'ed at Hank, even if he was PRO-Charismatic, which is exactly why I hate to watch the whiny "oh poor us, the heresy hunters are out to get us" garbage that's spewed off TBN. Their sneak attacks are no less vicious than his, the only difference being they wrongly invoke the legal Authority of the Almighty to curse their brother, by the gross misrepresentation of the "touch not mine anointed" clause, while they forget the "bless, and curse not" part and also they forget the the "render blessing for cursing" part and also they forget the "shake the dust and move on" part.

Uphold truth, live righteously, don't have financial mismanagement, behave responsibly, walk softly, exude God's presence, dispense the sweetness of the Holy Spirit, and watch the critics fall by the wayside under the darkness of their own dishonesty.

Problem is, Benny and the rest don't want to do that. They'd rather play the spite game.

JAS4Yeshua · Jun 8, 2007

Questioning Christian said:
Double H [once again, I say, not Triple H] uses the modus operandi of cheap shots and sneak attacks. To me, Hank is no different from the attackers of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 - he comes under the guise of peace, and makes civil agreements, then before you turn your back even 90 degrees, there's half a blade in it!

I'd be P.O.'ed at Hank, even if he was PRO-Charismatic, which is exactly why I hate to watch the whiny "oh poor us, the heresy hunters are out to get us" garbage that's spewed off TBN. Their sneak attacks are no less vicious than his, the only difference being they wrongly invoke the legal Authority of the Almighty to curse their brother, by the gross misrepresentation of the "touch not mine anointed" clause, while they forget the "bless, and curse not" part and also they forget the the "render blessing for cursing" part and also they forget the "shake the dust and move on" part.

Uphold truth, live righteously, don't have financial mismanagement, behave responsibly, walk softly, exude God's presence, dispense the sweetness of the Holy Spirit, and watch the critics fall by the wayside under the darkness of their own dishonesty.

Problem is, Benny and the rest don't want to do that. They'd rather play the spite game.

Now that's something I actually agree with QC on.

Quote from Hank Hanegraaff - Let's Discuss

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

-That’s me in the corner, losing my religion

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Servant of the Lord

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Cultivate Honduras

Legend

Well-Known Member

Servant of the Lord

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency