Quote from Hank Hanegraaff - Let's Discuss

[Questioning Christian]

I don't like ANY vicious sharking from any side.

 

[Tenebrae]

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

 

[Zugzwang]

double post.

 

[Zugzwang]

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.

 

[synger]

vbmenu_register("postmenu_35527825", true);

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?

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.

These quotes help illustrate some of my concerns with extreme WoF teachings. While most that I've talked to have solid orthodox Christian doctrine, some are kinda.. well... "out there".

Let me give anexample. This is not intended to accuse, but rather to point out some of the difficulties I have had with some of the faith teachings. I have a number of Pagan friends, and they cast spells. One of the spells is for money. My husband has always (privately) pooh-poohed them for this because even though they use these spells, we've yet to see a well-off Pagan in our community. Yet these are some of our best friends, and we have had to teach our DD6 the difference between what they believe (worshiping the creation, and trying to use magic to influence things) and what we believe (worshiping the Creator, and praying for Him to influence things through His grace and mercy and bountiful love).

Then one of our friends watched some prosperity gospel show on TV, and came to us with all sorts of questions. To them, it sounded, looked, and acted much like their magic spells (and to us, it seems to have about the same amount of success). Ultimately, the discussion was an unsatisfactory one for both sides. We just couldn't explain it.

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.

So long as we look to Christ, and Him crucified... then all other doctrine, calling, service, and blessing flows from that. That is true of all Christians, no matter what denomination or tradition they come from.

 

[lismore]

Just browsing through my precious copy of Christianity in Crisis

When someone writes a book and calls it 'Christianity in Crisis' you get a peek into what is in his heart.

I dont believe Christianity is in Crisis. The gospel is going out to all nations, there are more Christians now than there ever have been, Jesus is coming soon and until he does the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

What this guy means is that his version of Christianity is in Crisis.

GOOD!

 

[lismore]

Then one of our friends watched some prosperity gospel show on TV, and came to us with all sorts of questions.

Hi there

I think it is necessary to use discernment these days- spiritual things are spiritually discerned. And it is very important to know what God's word says so that you can have an answer eady in any situation.

There are a lot of people out there who say they are evangelists, faith teachers and healers etc but by their fruit you know them. Not everyone who says he is a follower of Jesus Christ actually is a follower of Jesus Christ.

E.G Anyone who says God's blessing is given in response to your financial 'seed' is not telling the truth.

Every blessing of God is given in Christ (Eph 1:3). You cant buy a miracle or buy a blessing. Every blessing of God is given freely and for free in Christ! it is by grace we are saved, not by works!

 

[TheMatmanReturns]

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.

here, here!

 

[heron]

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.

 

[franky67]

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."

 

[JTM3]

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."

So some Christians might not be raptured?

 

[victoryword]

First, let me thank everyone for their candid, honest, but most CIVIL responses. It has been refreshing to read these posts without the venom that I encountered on another forum I will remain nameless.

I will try to answer as many of you as I can.

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.

Perhaps you and I have seen things from our individual perspectives. For example, from my perspective, Hanegraaff has played a sounbite out of context and then began to refute a strawman of his own creation with Scripture. Some of the things that HH claims that the WoF believes, I never met one that did.

My experience on forums also differs from yours. It has always seemed to me that those opposed to the Faith Teachings have been the hostile and antagonistic ones. However, all of this can be behind us and we can all learn to discuss our differences like true brothers and sisters in Christ.

Anyway, enjoyed reading your post. God bless you.

Thanks!

You are welcome. Is your username a reference to that incident in Elisha's life where he was used by God to make the axehead float?

 

[victoryword]

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.

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. 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.

That right there answered the question of whether I should send him money or even recommend that anyone listen to him, so I am glad you don't. I am not a big fan of Benny Hinn though I respect him but this obsession with those he disagrees with is not fruitful.

Thanks Tamara for such a wonderful exchange in this thread.

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.

Hi Svt4Him

I can vaguely remember the post and a search would probably take time to dig thru. However, James Spencer's book is online and he has a chapter that deals with some of Hank's misquotes of Copeland. Here's a link:

http://www.mazeministry.com/resources/books/heartstext/chap11.htm

Gregg Huestis' book, "Another Side of the Coin" is a truly revealing essay of HH's tactics. I highly recommend it.

 

[victoryword]

Let me say that I have read all of the posts and all of you have made excellent points. I will respond to all of them, but not tonight. I will tackle a few more and then get to the rest later.

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 don't watch TBN that much, not for the same reasons you give, but because its just not much on it that interests me. However, I have the utmost respect for Paul and Jan and I believe that TBN was a vision given to them from God.

That being said, I have heard Crouch mention the "heretic hunters" on rare occasions but never in a vindictive way. I have read about Benny Hinn and the "Holy Ghost Machine Gun" thing but I seriously doubt that he has spent all of his air time retaliating against his crtics as his critics seem to spend every waking hour looking for something against him. I was telling Tamara that even as late as yesterday HH went on the attack of Benny Hinn. It seems like his whole ministry is centered around attack, where TBN and Hinn may rarely but occasionally respond out of hurt.

In that sense, I don't think the two compare. My opinion based on my limited knowledge.

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

Exactly! It is one thing to disagree, but it is another thing on the approach we take. There are some anti-charismatic and anti-wof books I have enjoyed reading due to their more charitable approach. John R. Rice's book, "The Charismatics" comes to mind as well as Bruce Barron's "The Health and Wealth Gospel." Both books were against their subjects but treated the people in their books as brothers, did not quote out of context, expressed their disagreements kindly, and even defended us at certain points.

I did not agree with either author for the most part, but they kept my attention and earned my respect regardless. They provide examples of how to make one's point.

 

[heron]

That right there answered the question of whether I should send him money or even recommend that anyone listen to him,

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.

A preacher has a captive audience, often a loyal following, and has little need to convince his parishioners or tv groupies of the wrongs of another ministry's leader. It is one thing to address a specific teaching someone gave, but another to say an entire ministry does not come under the umbrella of Saved.

 

[Greatcloud]

HH and company have more of a problem with WOF and gifts for today, and asking for the Holy Spirit and other Spiritual things,then we have with them. My problem with that movement is not so much that they don't operate in the gifts of the Spirit. My main problem believe it or not is their incorrect interpretation of scripture. They read the Bible a lot and are very familiar with it,that is very commendable. However they have a strict and narrow interpretation of what the Bible says. They compare themselves among themselves and have a srrict doctrinal interpretation for everything. There is no room for any varience and I find this disturbing,and it has been that way as long as I can remember.

I do not want to criticize too much but if that stream would not be so absolute on things in the Bible where there is considerable freedom I would respect them and fellowship with them more.

Much more can be said about this obviously,but I find it interesting that the strength of HH & McCarther, their Bible knowledge, is IMHO their biggest weakness.

​

 

[Atlantians]

Mods: Please note the OP's question. This, I think, is an important question, and I want to answer it to further discussion.
I also think this thread can further good discussion and am hoping for it to.

To Moderators: I will rephrase or rehash anything you feal is too harsh or inappropriate. Please contact me before warnings, ect.

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.

Never read the book.
Heard most of it in Quotes though.

Either way: Meh.

I think he does write his books himself because of just how heavily he relies on certain phrases he uses in them while talking.

Anyway.

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

Rarely.

Only more extreme teachings.

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

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.

Cults? Not so much.
Only in so much as to adhering to certain people "Haggin, Copeland, ect."

But in all honesty, the way my pastor reveres Calvin is not too different, just less pronounced, and more in jest in public. Revering someone is not bad. Revering them while ignoring their faults is.
Please someone on this thread say something negetive about Something Haggin has said...

So answer: Cults=mainly No.

The "little god" stuff that floats around is certain Mormon"ic" and from the Haunted/Omnipresent Supergalactic Oneness World views, but not pure cult. And is not, I don't think, normative.

And the literal made in God's image stuff... a few other things.
But those are strains of false-thought not Denomination defining.

By in large: No.
By in large, in as much as borrows from New Age principles in view of faith, yes.

Faith is not a force wherein we speak faith filled words that alter reality. Or change what is real, or change the world.
Faith is a trusting love of God. No more, no less.
God loves that trusting love and oft will hold back unless it exists in those whom he wants to use.
That is all! ('All' in the uplifting, YAY! sorta way, not the limiting, well, thats it? Sorta way.)

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

)

Profound quotes are great regardless of their source.

After all, as Stalin so poigniantly said: The death of a man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.
We all too often focus on indicviduals we know without deeply caring fore those we don't even know exist.
We are all too often heartless.

So in that sense, anyone is a great source for quotes.
If the quotes are great.

What is wrong with Baby Baptism?

And who were the Donatists?

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?

What?
Rephrase please, not sure what you are asking.

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?

In some ways it has damaged Christianity a lot.
The whole "Take no medicines if you have them" phase was kinda nasty.

And the massive: "Give TBN 10 thousand dollars an you too will get your miracle!" -Rod Parsley

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)?

Well, in Hank's view, WoF is not under that advice 'cause it is too significant of a venture from scriptures.

I think it is less so.

I have issues with you all, but I won't break fellowship.

Some levels of caution are in store.

When I went to a healing service some few months ago, it was by a person called "Apostle".

This guy had every cliche WOFism about him.
Books and CDs about getting Mercedes and being "blessed"m saying healing is for everyone and if you doubt you won't be healed, ect ect ect.
Blaming (by implication) lack of healing on the person who was being prayed for.

Yet almost everyone fell for it.
I set aside my doubt at the door.
I hoped as well as I could.
I belived as much as I could.
I analyzed little.

But after 3 hours... I just left.

And almost lost faith.
I went through a few days of horrible doubt.

"Apostle" Charles N'Difon
At this site: http://www.christlove.tv/
Was the man of that healing service.

If that was true WoF, then it is more insidious and dangerous than the deepest falsehoods from the clefts of any hall of Islam, Religious institutions or Atheism.

If that wasn't WoF, then let none of this be seen as any form of argument against WoF.

I want to say now: No movement, no denomination is free from falsehoods, from false representatives.

So that is why I am saying: If this man and those like him do not represent WoF, then my issue with WoF is far less and more tempered.

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: By elevating men to "little" Gods. The use of Faith being New Age-like.

I say: Most WOFers do not. The ones that do are the quivelent to Hyper-CAlvinism, or Mormonism.
Claiming Christianity, but are not Christians.
So they would thus, not really be WoF.
Thus the point is moot.

4: I think this balances with Charismatics openness to new things that leads into false things and deception.

5: Destroying faith through hyper-emotional healings that turn out to be false, ship-whrecking lives by saying to go off meds. Hyped up healings, that as you delve deeper, you discover are less... and less true, until, looking back, you realize they were lies.
Phased out (IE: A phase. Not aleays around.) things that have stigmatized WoF.

All of these I have experienced in WoF.
In totally seperate parts of WoF.
All of them happened to either me or my mother.
Or both.
Some in New Jersey some in California.

Are these things normative of WoF?
You tell me.

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: By elevating men to "little" Gods. The use of Faith being New Age-like.

I say: Most WOFers do not. The ones that do are the quivelent to Hyper-CAlvinism, or Mormonism.
Claiming Christianity, but are not Christians.
So they would thus, not really be WoF.
Thus the point is moot.

4: I think this balances with Charismatics openness to new things that leads into false things and deception.

5: Destroying faith through hyper-emotional healings that turn out to be false, ship-whrecking lives by saying to go off meds. Hyped up healings, that as you delve deeper, you discover are less... and less true, until, looking back, you realize they were lies.
Phased out (IE: A phase. Not aleays around.) things that have stigmatized WoF.

All of these I have experienced in WoF.
In totally seperate parts of WoF.
All of them happened to either me or my mother.
Or both.
Some in New Jersey some in California.

Are these things normative of WoF?
You tell me.

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).

Could you show some of those quotes?

Heck mail me the book.

I have seen over the past two years one major thing:
There are two sides to EVERY story.

And seeing both helps you clear out the goo.

I personally rearely take sides when friends are disputing.

I try and point out where each of them are missing the mark, if anything, or just give advice and let them talk to me.

If someone was arguing against WoF, I would, if the arguments were bad, point to the good of WoF to temper him.

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

Plausible. Makes sense.

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.

Indeed.

If what you said of Augustine was True (I am not familiar with him), then he was not that great of a teacher.

 

[flaglady]

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.

Cutsey cutsey!! Did you ever get a date?

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

Me too!! 100%

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."

I'd never heard of it before either but through getting to know some of the folk on here, it would seem that this type of philosophy is largely imposed upon them by others and does not form the core of their faith any more than that other glorious read herring appellation applied to Charismatics as being "happy clappers" or barking, clucking and doing other such silly stuff. It really annoys me that when I tell someone I'm Pentecostal that immediately come back with the "happy clappy" quip as if that's all there is to us. I'm sure that every time Wofers stick their heads up over the parapet and immediately get plastered with this "prosperity doctrine" label, it must annoy them equally as much.

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.

Absolutely! And this would apply to any denomination or faith you care to mention. I hate seeing one group labelled like this. Which is not to say I'm pro or anti WoF any more than I am pro or anti any other denomination. I just think that (in this forum) people should be allowed to worship in the way that they feel is right without continually having to defend themselves. I sympathise with them because I know how I feel when people wrap all Pentecostals up in one parcel labelled "wrong doctrine - unBiblical".

Grrrrrr!

 

[Atlantians]

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.

Glad to hear that.

Try this site:

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

As I see it, that is not where you want to be educated by the WoF movement, but where to be indoctrinated.

I recoment tempering that with a staunbch anti-WoF site.

And try ro find something nuetral if there is any.

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).

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.

Then he goes on to show why he believes WoF (and he is actually going after radical WoF, thus stigmitizing all of ye, without making any seperation, and thus does harm) is a violation of the essentials.

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 agree.
Exagerated, yes.
But honsetly, I rarely hear him talk about it. Rarely.
Used to be all he talked about durring a few weaks, and I got tired of it. But he has almost never mentioned it when I have listened to him.

"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.

I have listened to him since I was 12.
He has been used by God, unlike any other teacher, in providing me with God given ability and wisdom in every aspect of my faith.

More thoughts, more views, the ability to stand firm in my faith in School.
No other person has had that effect on my life, even as wonderful as my former-Church was in strngthening me in other areas of my life, Hank has enabled me and equiped me to Stand and Know that God is my God, to Know what I believe why I believe it and who I believe.

You have no right to treat him how you say he treats others.
With contempt and hate.

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.​

Personally I find bad arguments for views I hate worse.


I remember Philosophy club, 10th grade.

A girl raised her hand to make a point for God creating the universe. I had been arguing Science, and the like, dismanteling the logic falacies of the pro-evolutionists, and destroying their arguments.

She says: "Well come on, if God doesn't exist then what holds the earth up in the air like that, Huh!?"

I just in my mind:

All that work for nothing...

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,

Hank is 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.

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.

Amen!!!!!

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."

So you are Pre-Millenial Dispensationist?

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.

Blah, if its false its false, bad argument.

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.

What did he say? And how was he attacking?
Also: Was it in response to a caller or a seperate monologue?

Try this site:

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

As I see it, that is not where you want to be educated by the WoF movement, but where to be indoctrinated.

I recoment tempering that with a staunbch anti-WoF site.

And try ro find something nuetral if there is any.

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).

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.

Then he goes on to show why he believes WoF (and he is actually going after radical WoF, thus stigmitizing all of ye, without making any seperation, and thus does harm) is a violation of the essentials.

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 agree.
Exagerated, yes.
But honsetly, I rarely hear him talk about it. Rarely.
Used to be all he talked about durring a few weaks, and I got tired of it. But he has almost never mentioned it when I have listened to him.

"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.

I have listened to him since I was 12.
He has been used by God, unlike any other teacher, in providing me with God given ability and wisdom in every aspect of my faith.

More thoughts, more views, the ability to stand firm in my faith in School.
No other person has had that effect on my life, even as wonderful as my former-Church was in strngthening me in other areas of my life, Hank has enabled me and equiped me to Stand and Know that God is my God, to Know what I believe why I believe it and who I believe.

You have no right to treat him how you say he treats others.
With contempt and hate.

 

[Atlantians]

Double post.