Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
well said BroDouble 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.
Zugzwang said:They see what's on TBN, and take it that's what WOF is all about, and who canblame them when you hardly hear anyone disagreeing with them?
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.
Just browsing through my precious copy of Christianity in Crisis
Then one of our friends watched some prosperity gospel show on TV, and came to us with all sorts of questions.
here, here!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.
I noticed this week that in Revelations, Jesus calls the seven churches in Asai together. Each one of these churches had different tendencies -- different things to criticize and compliment. But each was still considered part of the order... seven spirits, seven lampstands, seven stars.
Rev. 1
"Do http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R62not be afraid; I http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R63am the first and the last, 18 and the living http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R64 One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. 19 "Therefore write the http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R68things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.
20 "As for the mystery http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R70 of the seven http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R71stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+1&t=nas&sr=0#R71stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
--Still considered valuable and part of His plan.
Jesus had nothing to say against the church at Philadelphia, I believe this is a type of the raptured church.
In Rev. 3:11
"Because you have kept the word of My perserverance, I will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which will come upon the whole world to test those who dwell upon the earth."
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.
Thanks!
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.
Very, very true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
well said Bro
HH has made some good points, I remeber listening to one of his sermons, however what put me off was the really snarky and snide way he was attacking people like Benny Hinn, and Rodney Howard Brown. Ok, so I dont agree with either of those two men on alot of things
However theres so much better ways to get the point across
It disturbs me when one preacher slams another preacher so specifically. I think it's more appropriate to pick apart pros and cons on a forum, with an assumption that each person holds a bit of truth.That right there answered the question of whether I should send him money or even recommend that anyone listen to him,
Never read the book.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: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: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)
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.
Rarely.1. Do you believe, like Mr. Hanegraaff that WoFers reject the ESSENTIALS of Christianity?
The way it views faith is very very similar to the New Age view of "We are Gods-Universal Magnetism attracts happy things to us if we speak happy thoughts." Ect.2. Do you believe that the faith movement rightly fits within "The Kingdom of the Cults?"
Profound quotes are great regardless of their source.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)
What?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?
In some ways it has damaged Christianity a lot.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?
Well, in Hank's view, WoF is not under that advice 'cause it is too significant of a venture from scriptures.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)?
Han would say: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..
Han would say: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..
Could you show some of those quotes?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).
Plausible. Makes sense.Yes, I think Hank was playing on the sympathies of non-wof charismatics by exaggerating the "unity" between them and noncharismatics.
Indeed.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.
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.
Now that's something I actually agree with QC on.
It's been fascinating for me, who considers myself charismatic in a general sense, to learn more about WoF, which I'd never really heard of before this incident. Sure, I knew there was a WoF subforum to this one, but when I first started posting there there wasn't a lot of discussion and debate about the so-called "prosperity gospel."
The bottom line for me is this: if someone focuses on Christ, the Spirit will lead them true. If they focus on money or whatever more than they focus on Christ, then they (like any other believer in any other denomination) can be led astray. I'm not saying that WoFers are all led astray from the gospel! But I think at its extreme, it can do so.
Glad to hear that.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.
As I see it, that is not where you want to be educated by the WoF movement, but where to be indoctrinated.
Hank was not correcting anyone with that Quote, but rather setting the principle that we should not divide over essentials, we should not hate things and bitterly attack things that go against our preferences of non-essentials (Charismatic Chaos from what I have heard), and in all things, most bitterly oposed, we should have charity.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).
I agree.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 have listened to him since I was 12."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.
Personally I find bad arguments for views I hate worse.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.
Hank is Pro-Charismatic...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,
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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.
Amen!!!!!Vw,
The problem is that the ppl here that have voiced their opinions about what's right and wrong with WOF, are the MINORITY, not the majority. They see what's on TBN, and take it that's what WOF is all about, and who canblame them when you hardly hear anyone disagreeing with them?
We've all heard the stats about how most muslims are peaceful ppl, and that only 10% are the ones that want to kill EVERYBODY that disagrees with them, yet you never hear the majority speak up against them, do you? Well the same thing is happening now.
Another example, one i can speak about b/c I was penetecostal at the time, is when Swaggert had that affair, and he went before everyone, and confessed what he had done. He stepped down, and went away for awhile, but he came back not that long thereafter. Do you all remember what happened next? The ppl OVER him said he wasn't gone long enough, that it was too soon, and that he should continue to stay away and get his act together. what did he do? He came back anyway, said it was his job, etc. God had t old him, blah blah blah.
I remember pentecostals defending this man, and i always asked WHY?! The ppl in charge of him said no, and he's thumbing his nose at them! "Well, he's coming back cause God told him too, he has work to do for the Lord." No he doesn't! He has to obey his elders, those God put in charge OVER HIM! And seeing the way he left when he did, he doesn't have a leg to stand on coming back like the way he's doing.
In short some ppl have to have their heoroes, doesn't matter what they act like, as long as they say "God told me to say it/ do it" they'll be believed, en masse.
They're only human beings, just like you and I, and probably need less of God then we do, b/c their needs AND wants are already met. Why do you think Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter heaven? Do you believe they're pleading to God for their car payments? Or their rent? Do you think they're relying on God for their needs, or mastercard?
Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox now, sorry. Feel free to flame away, I'm ready.
So you are Pre-Millenial Dispensationist?Jesus had nothing to say against the church at Philadelphia, I believe this is a type of the raptured church.
In Rev. 3:11
"Because you have kept the word of My perserverance, I will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which will come upon the whole world to test those who dwell upon the earth."
Blah, if its false its false, bad argument.You were in Junior High School in the 90s? Man, don't I feel old now
Many say that Mr. Hanegraaff has gifts and flaws and we should accept the good with the bad.
What did he say? And how was he attacking?Therefore I always try to give him a chance. However, yesterday evening while driving to a Bible study at home that houses ex-alcoholics and ex-druggees, I happen to be listen to Christian radio and HH was on. First he was telling his listeners how CRI is almost depleted in funds and has been receiving no support and needed support right away.
I was thinking, "Gee, should I send some money to them in love. Perhaps they are helping people. Many do say that I should overlook His flaws and see his gifts." Unfortunately it was not too long after his emotional appeal for financial help that he goes about attacking Benny Hinn, faith healers, and the so-called counterfeit revival.
As I see it, that is not where you want to be educated by the WoF movement, but where to be indoctrinated.
Hank was not correcting anyone with that Quote, but rather setting the principle that we should not divide over essentials, we should not hate things and bitterly attack things that go against our preferences of non-essentials (Charismatic Chaos from what I have heard), and in all things, most bitterly oposed, we should have charity.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).
I agree.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 have listened to him since I was 12."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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?