Hanegraaff Sings Praises To The LC/Recovery With A Lengthy Explanation

[Boxjobox]

Here is a video of Hank Hanegraaff schooling Francis Chan on Orthodoxy and trinity. Half way through Hanegraaff sings praises to the LC/Recovery with a lengthy explanation of his change of heart. Most interesting indeed!

https://youtu.be/PDm251gA6Lw

The relevant part starts at 44:00

[UntoHim]

Excerpt from Hank Hanegraaff's statement about the Local Church:

"I actually started my own journey, with respect to going back and looking at the ancient church, as a result of being president of CRI, and being a leader of an organization that believed that a particular group that known as "the Recovery", was cultic. We had position papers on them. When someone would contact us we'd give them those position papers. I met with the leading ones in that movement of the Holy Spirit, and the very things that we said they denied, they affirmed in that meeting, so I pulled all of the statements we had about that organization out of circulation.

We started a six year primary research project on this group (we didn't know it would take that long) . That took me to many different places in Asia where the group is largest, particularly China. And many other places in Asia - Indonesia, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar. And at the end of that research project we came to the conclusion that we were wrong. Well, we splashed in large letters across our flagship magazine, Christian Research Journal, "We Were Wrong". And we told the story of how we were wrong - how what we said before was wrong. Through that we became not separated brothers, we became united.

So we have differences to this day - significant differences - perhaps on secondary issues. But I have no doubt that these are brothers in the Lord. And that their whole move of the Holy Spirit is a move of recovery. It's called the Recovery! (It's called the Local Churches in some places, but it's called the Recovery.) Why? Because they're seeking to recover the truths that were taught historically in the ancient church, and then to apply them today. And one of the great truths that they have uncovered, as part of the recovery, is deification. And that was the very thing that was foremost in our mind, and in the minds of many cult experts, that made them a cult. They say that "we can become God". They do say that, but they don't ever say that like a Mormon would say. They say that in that we can become a God, but not as God is in the Godhead. Meaning we can partake of the energies of God, we can partake of the essence of God, for God is ennoble in his essence. And so they're recovering truths. Well that started me....They're looking back throughout history at the church and recovering truths that had been lost. Maybe there's some truths that I'm missing as well.

And that really became not only a point of unification (instead of carping from the fringes and saying "that's a cultic group") we met together and it changed our perception, in fact, it was people in that move of the Spirit that I saw in far-flung places around the world that gave me a hunger for life. I knew about the Lord, and I knew doctrinal truth, but I did not experience the life that some of these people, who may have had less intellectual or spiritual or theological acumen that I have, but they had a living, vibrant relationship with the Lord, which I pined after, and that opened the floodgates for me."
-
-

[Nell]

In all of Hank’s miles he traveled to vindicate the LC, did he interview any former Local Church members? If he did, he didn’t happen to mention it.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by HankHanegraaff

We started a six year primary research project on this group (we didn't know it would take that long) . That took me to many different places in Asia where the group is largest, particularly China. And many other places in Asia - Indonesia, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar.

Six year primary research project, and not one single in depth interview with any former longtime Local Church member? I know for a fact that Hank didn't respond to former members reaching out to him. I know for a fact because I was one of them. I reached out through the CRI website and also Hank's email address. I even called the CRI office and left a message. No response. I know of other former members who reached out to Hanegraaff as well.

Hanegraaff apparently jetted all over the world (probably at the expense of LSM) and yet he never mentions anything about doing this "primary research" in Anaheim California where the headquarters of LSM is located. The Local Church of Witness Lee was based in America from the mid-60s up until Witness Lee's death in 1997. The headquarters and all movement direction is still based in Anaheim California. Hank also fails to mention the Asian headquarters of the Local Church, which is in Taiwan. No mention of Taiwan. Why is that?

Originally Posted by HankHanegraaff

So we have differences to this day - significant differences - perhaps on secondary issues.

So Hank, you consider that calling Witness Lee "the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age" a secondary issue? You consider the calling of all of Protestantism as "Christless" a secondary issue? When the president of LSM, Mr. Benson Phillips, says that when one leaves the Local Church of Witness Lee they "will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within them" and that "The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery" you consider it a secondary issue? Brother Hank, when can we expect your full retraction and the printing of "We were Wrong about being Wrong"?
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps you previewed your post and then forgot to submit it. Arrrgh, I have done that too many times.

Yes, you may be right. So here, from memory, is what I posted:

Originally Posted by HankHanegraaff

And that was the very thing that was foremost in our mind, and in the minds of many cult experts, that made them a cult. They say that "we can become God". They do say that, but they don't ever say that like a Mormon would say. They say that in that we can become a God, but not as God is in the Godhead. Meaning we can partake of the energies of God, we can partake of the essence of God, for God is ennoble in his essence.

So is the blue text above the main theological reason that WL and the LC are referred to as a cult? And if the Lord used this experience to cause bro Hank to pursue Him more fervently, is that a bad thing?

[Nell]

A RESPONSE TO THE CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL’S RECENT DEFENSE OF THE “LOCAL CHURCH” MOVEMENT (2009)
by Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense
Contending for the Faith

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, you may be right. So here, from memory, is what I posted:

So is the blue text above the main theological reason that WL and the LC are referred to as a cult? And if the Lord used this experience to cause bro Hank to pursue Him more fervently, is that a bad thing?

No. That’s one of many cultic practices of the LC.

I doubt that the Lord uses heresy to cause people to pursue him. I would think pursuing heresy would lead one off into more heresy.

Nell

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by HankHanegraaff

Excerpt from Hank Hanegraaff's statement about the Local Church:

" I met with the leading ones in that movement of the Holy Spirit, and the very things that we said they denied, they affirmed in that meeting, so I pulled all of the statements we had about that organization out of circulation.

We started a six year primary research project on this group (we didn't know it would take that long) . That took me to many different places in Asia where the group is largest, particularly China. And many other places in Asia - Indonesia, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar. And at the end of that research project we came to the conclusion that we were wrong. Well, we splashed in large letters across our flagship magazine, Christian Research Journal, "We Were Wrong". And we told the story of how we were wrong - how what we said before was wrong. Through that we became not separated brothers, we became united."
-
-

This is a great example of false humility. Hank is tooting his own horn here, revealing how humble he believes himself to be...
P.S.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Here is a video of Hank Hanegraaff schooling Francis Chan on Orthodoxy and trinity. Half way through Hanegraaff sings praises to the LC/Recovery with a lengthy explanation of his change of heart. Most interesting indeed!

https://youtu.be/PDm251gA6Lw

The relevant part starts at 44:00

Interesting who's sitting at the table with Hank and Francis Chan. PK Yohannon, grifter extraordinaire. They say his church group, Gospel for Asia, pulled in millions and millions from naive donors, telling them it was for the poor of India, and he was padding his nest, putting family members on the board, setting up for-profit businesses on the side.

Then there's Hank Hanegraaff. Pulls in a tidy six-figure income from his "ministry" that he took over someone else's work. His wife gets a six-figure salary. His house, two Lexus', golf club membership, all tax-exempt "ministry expenses". He's got "interns" doing the work for him, he slaps his name on it and sells it.

"Behold, the wages of the workmen that you cheated, they cry out to heaven" says James 5:4.

Then there's Witness Lee, another grifter extraordinaire. One location (Boston) gave $100,000 to his son's Motor Home business. How many locations ponied up how much, we don't know. But it was 1970 dollars, back when a million could buy you a lot.

What serious Christian would listen to these grifters? They need to repent, and come back to the Body of Christ, and stop putting their hands out for $$$. They need to get jobs like the rest of us. They are lovers of money. I suppose they either have seduced Chan or use him for some cover (like LSM did w HH). The veneer of legitimacy, means the $$ keeps coming. It's a scam, folks.

https://donorbewise.com/gospel-asia-...-class-action/

[Sons to Glory!]

So no one has responded to the specific question of which theological teaching was the greatest error that WL has taught. I put forth that it was the "man becoming God" teaching. I assume that since no one responded to this question that folks here are generally in agreement.

Accordingly, the question of "What is man?" (Psalm 8:4) is a big one indeed! Perhaps we should start a new thread to see how we might answer this question, unless one's been done on it recently . . . (I didn't find one on a search)

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So no one has responded to the specific question of which theological teaching was the greatest error that WL has taught. I put forth that it was the "man becoming God" teaching. I assume that since no one responded to this question that folks here are generally in agreement.

Accordingly, the question of "What is man?" (Psalm 8:4) is a big one indeed! Perhaps we should start a new thread to see how we might answer this question, unless one's been done on it recently . . . (I didn't find one on a search)

I think this is a hard question to answer and would be difficult to reach a common consensus on.

It could be reasonably posited that "God's economy" is the greatest error since it seems to be the glasses through which he sees everything as well as negates everyone else......and his teaching of it is wrong.

It could also reasonably be posited that the MOTA is his greatest error because it makes following the MOTA a requirement for right-standing with God......the implication of which is that the sacrifice of Jesus isn't enough for right-standing with God. Negating the death and resurrection of the Son of God is pretty big.

I don't have time to write more, but I think there are other errors that could be thrown forth.

Edit to add: as you and I have discussed a few times, I disagree 100% with Lee's teaching of the garden of Eden and what the trees represent. It could be argued that this was his greatest error since this twisted teaching created so many controlling and abusive things from it - "don't care about right or wrong", "knowledge is death", "good is death", "you are on the wrong tree", etc..... All of those are ONLY used to abuse.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think this is a hard question to answer and would be difficult to reach a common consensus on.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Sons to Glory- your question would be like asking which is the greater sin: adultery or murder or not honoring your father or mother?

So the 70 theologians on the open-letter.org site pointed out four errors - two theological things and two things more regarding practices. Do we agree that a good place to start on the key errors would be these two theological things, since this is what the theologians focused on?

If so, the theological teachings they focused on were the Modalism and the "man becomes God" things. So of those two, which do you think is the most egregious?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So the 70 theologians on the open-letter.org site pointed out four errors - two theological things and two things more regarding practices. Do we agree that a good place to start on the key errors would be these two theological things, since this is what the theologians focused on?

If so, the theological teachings they focused on were the Modalism and the "man becomes God" things. So of those two, which do you think is the most egregious?

I think on this thread we should consider the Hanegraaff video, and you bring up your questions on a different thread. Hanegraaff would consider himself a “theologian”, and here on the video he is talking about wanting to publish a book before he joins himself to some Orthodox Church because he is afraid of what they may think of him and his book, but he and his wife long to be able to partake of communion, which he seems to now consider the actual partaking of the body and blood of Jesus ( transsubstanciation?) because this is what the “ancient” church believed and practiced, and this is what should now in his theology be the come-together catalyst which Francis Chan is looking for and wondering about. The other fellow thinks humility and not making a business out of the things of God is important? Francis Chan has the deer in the headlights look as he listens to both of them- like what am I supposed to do with this? Stuck in the middle of all this is Hanegraaff praising the “recovery”, the thing he once labeled as a cult, now being the cat’s pajamas. If one can make sense out of any of this and feel any of what is spoken is the new way, God’s up to date move, the pillar of truth, etc., please be my tutor, because I think I’m flunking out in this class.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It could be reasonably posited that "God's economy" is the greatest error ...

It could also reasonably be posited that the MOTA is his greatest error ...

I don't have time to write more, but I think there are other errors that could be thrown forth.

I'm thinking the "Ground of Locality" is the biggest error because it is used to discredit all other Christians and churches. Once every other outside voice is muzzled, the door is wide open for an endless litany of further errors. Note that Darby and Nee used the same error too. (The RCC successfully used it for centuries -- "we are the only church.")

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm thinking the "Ground of Locality" is the biggest error because it is used to discredit all other Christians and churches. Once every other outside voice is muzzled, the door is wide open for an endless litany of further errors. Note that Darby and Nee used the same error too. (The RCC successfully used it for centuries -- "we are the only church.")

I was thinking this was more a practice, but it makes sense that it was based on faulty theology which lead to the practice . . . .

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It could also reasonably be posited that the MOTA is his greatest error because it makes following the MOTA a requirement for right-standing with God......the implication of which is that the sacrifice of Jesus isn't enough for right-standing with God. Negating the death and resurrection of the Son of God is pretty big.

Trapped - Yes I agree with you 100% - MOTA is THE greatest error! F. B. Hole, which I quote from below, saw that by embracing the MOTA (or Teacher For The Moment) doctrine, the doors of discernment can easily be thrown open to novel & unbalanced teachings (under the pressure to innovate and prove that teacher's uniqueness),...

Anyone ever heard of the "High Peaks"? P.S.

Modern Mystical Teachings and the Word of God.
F. B. Hole.
Chapter 1 Features
Chapter 2 Eclipse of Objective Realities
Chapter 3 Belittling of Scripture
Chapter 4 Priestly Caste
Chapter 5 Self-occupation
Chapter 6 Fanciful and Extravagant Ideas
Chapter 7 Teaching as a Whole

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Trapped - Yes I agree with you 100% - MOTA is THE greatest error! F. B. Hole, which I quote from below, saw that by embracing the MOTA (or Teacher For The Moment) doctrine, the doors of discernment can easily be thrown open to novel & unbalanced teachings (under the pressure to innovate and prove that teacher's uniqueness),...

Priestly Scribe, that's a great point. The MOTA-type teaching is fraught with several layers of danger. Not only the essence of denying the sufficiency of the death of Jesus, but also the side-product of the pressure to innovate and wow the audience. It's bad news all around.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So no one has responded to the specific question of which theological teaching was the greatest error that WL has taught. I put forth that it was the "man becoming God" teaching. I assume that since no one responded to this question that folks here are generally in agreement.

Accordingly, the question of "What is man?" (Psalm 8:4) is a big one indeed! Perhaps we should start a new thread to see how we might answer this question, unless one's been done on it recently . . . (I didn't find one on a search)

Sons to Glory- your question would be like asking which is the greater sin: adultery or murder or not honoring your father or mother?