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

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by 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

Oh boy, I got "into my mind" reading through these! I wonder how long these will go forth & back & forth! Thanks for posting, but I have to admit that I have little stomach for these kinds of endless theological ranglings - will anything really be gained by it? Really?

[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

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh boy, I got "into my mind" reading through these! I wonder how long these will go forth & back & forth! Thanks for posting, but I have to admit that I have little stomach for these kinds of endless theological ranglings - will anything really be gained by it? Really?

“Turn to your spirit bro!”

1 Peter 3:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

This forum is about discussing all things LC. It’s about being ready with an answer to every man that asks for a reason. It’s about preserving the history of the LC and it’s error, and those who expose its error.

The Hanegraaff/CRI reversal discussion may help some but not others. Can anything be gained by telling the truth? Absolutely. Reducing truth to “endless theological ranglings” doesn’t help.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

I wasn't referring to practices, but theology. Sure, lot's of poor practices in the LC. I was wondering if the "man becomes God" teaching is the main theological thing in considering it off-the-mark and a cult.

Is bro Hank pursuing heresy or the Lord? I don't think we can say for sure, can we? Only the Lord knows. And no matter what one pursues, the Lord will use it to bring us back on track to Himself.

[UntoHim]

Sons to Glory!
Before I rip into you about what you have posted .... I wanted to thank you for taking the time and care to post on the forum. Not many have had the guts to stick their neck out and defend the teachings and practices of the Local Church. Don't look now my brother, but you have been engaging in theological wranglings for over 9 years now on this very forum!

As is her habit, Nell has stolen my thunder. I was going to post almost word for word what she has. Thanks for beating me to the punch yet again sis.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And if the Lord used this experience to cause bro Hank to pursue Him more fervently, is that a bad thing?

While I do appreciate Hank's newfound experiences of the Lord, I would just assume that while he is doing the work of a Christian apologist, he actually do the work of a Christian apologist - using the God-breathed Word and apologetics "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16) and not letting the subject of his "six year primary research project" turn the tables on him, and let the tail wag the dog. Of course Hank is famous for caving into the subjects of his investigations, so I guess we shouldn't have expected anything less from him when it comes to kowtowing and praising the very group he is supposed to be critiquing. But hey, I guess kowtowing and groveling gets the mortgage paid on that multi-million dollar house, and keeps him behind the wheel of those luxury vehicles he drive at the expense of his donors.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was wondering if the "man becomes God" teaching is the main theological thing in considering it off-the-mark and a cult.

I am really surprised you could say such a thing. There are over 2,000 threads on this forum. Many of them go into the reasons why the theology of Witness Lee should be considered off the mark. The word "cult" is only as useful and impactful as those who are employing term. To put a sharper point on this, I would say it depends on who is calling who a cult.

While you're considering this a little more, you may want to take a look at Open-Letter.Org "More than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations have signed an unprecedented open letter to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry".
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Before I rip into you about what you have posted .... I wanted to thank you for taking the time and care to post on the forum. Not many have had the guts to stick their neck out and defend the teachings and practices of the Local Church.

I am really surprised you could say such a thing. There are over 2,000 threads on this forum. Many of them go into the reasons why the theology of Witness Lee should be considered off the mark. The word "cult" is only as useful and impactful as those who are employing term. To put a sharper point on this, I would say it depends on who is calling who a cult.

While you're considering this a little more, you may want to take a look at Open-Letter.Org "More than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations have signed an unprecedented open letter to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry".
-

I think you misread . . . I am asking if this is the main thing people object to with WL & LC. It's a question - I don't know . . . to clarify I'm asking if the "man becomes God" teaching is the biggest thing or is considered to be the most off the mark. Is it? That's all. (Sorry if I did not communicate that so well earlier.)

You are welcome bro. And as I've tried to effectively communicate many times, I am not a WL or LC apologist per se by any means. I don't routinely meet with the LC nor do I really have any connection there. Various ones I meet with do read Nee and appreciate some of his writings (I'm reading a really good one by Him now in fact.). To a much lessor extent, Lee's writings are around, but cited very rarely. So please, when I question what someone writes about Nee, Lee or the LC here, please don't construe it as me being all in the tank for them!!! Please. I am not.

But then again, since no active LCers seem to post on here currently, maybe you think I'm the closest thing - therefore y'all really do need me! Thanks - I feel at least a little needed now.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory!
Before I rip into you about what you have posted

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think you misread . . . I am asking if this is the main thing people object to with WL & LC. It's a question - I don't know . . . to clarify I'm asking if the "man becomes God" teaching is the biggest thing or is considered to be the most off the mark. Is it? That's all. (Sorry if I did not communicate that so well earlier.)

Sometimes I think this forum has taken on cancel culture. If you don't regularly display disdain for the other side, you will get canceled. Watch out STG, the twitter mob may get you. Keep your head down.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sometimes I think this forum has taken on cancel culture. If you don't regularly display disdain for the other side, you will get canceled. Watch out STG, the twitter mob may get you. Keep your head down.

"Great is your reward when men . . ."

[UntoHim]

So Ohio, are you going to contribute to the dialogue or what? Cancel Culture? Twitter mob? Really? I thought you were better than that my man. If reading the posts on this thread upsets you that much, maybe you should consider taking some time off.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think you misread . . . I am asking if this is the main thing people object to with WL & LC. It's a question - I don't know . . . to clarify [B]I'm asking if the "man becomes God" teaching is the biggest thing or is considered to be the most off the mark. Is it?

No I read just fine. The point is (which you apparently misread) is that the objections that many people have with the teachings and practices are well documented here on this forum and on many other websites, and they have been for many years now. The website I referred you to, Open-Letter.Org has been in continual publication since December of 2006 - almost 14 years now. So my point was, and still is, how is it that you don't know what has been considered off the mark, aberrational or heretical? I'm not saying that you should be in agreement with the assessments (I'm sure you're not) but I find it somewhat incredulous that you are unfamiliar with the arguments.
-

[Trapped]

Let me just say that I was in the LC for decades and didn't have a remote handle on what the controversies surrounding "us" were. It was only after I started reading the poisonous materials and actually digging into the arguments that I was surprised to find out what "we" believed was unusual for some and that others strongly didn't believe it. Most LC members just know "outsiders are against us, the one true move of God" and don't get into the nitty gritty. If StG has been out of the LC for a while, it's not strange to me that he wouldn't know what the main arguments are.

I would answer by saying that the four arguments (one of them being the becoming God thing) laid out in the open letter and addressed in the CRI journal do seem to be the primary objections outsiders have. But I think former insiders who have a much fuller landscape of what is taught and how things are commonly understood would add many other theological issues to the mix as to why the LC's are a cult.

The LC's qualify as a cult both socially as well as theologically, unfortunately.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Ohio, are you going to contribute to the dialogue or what? Cancel Culture? Twitter mob? Really? I thought you were better than that my man. If reading the posts on this thread upsets you that much, maybe you should consider taking some time off.

UntoHim it was just an observation derived from present day events. Why get so upset? Try to walk in our shoes.

Actually my point of view here was taken from a renowned Christian counselor named Dr. Gary Smalley. He has helped thousands to recover from abusive situations, and to forgive those who abused them. He taught clients a practice called "treasure hunting," which believes that everything we pass thru is of God, and though at times extremely difficult, we should look for all the positive things in those experiences, and hold on to them.

I have always found it unfortunate that many on this forum have disagreed with this. For years I have faced backlash for making simple positive comments about the LC experience. SonsToGlory has faced this too. I was simply trying to encourage him with some cultural hyperbole.

But back to your last comment. Are you now deciding to quarantine me?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

...

As is her habit, Nell has stolen my thunder. I was going to post almost word for word what she has. Thanks for beating me to the punch yet again sis.

You’re welcome!

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No I read just fine. The point is (which you apparently misread) is that the objections that many people have with the teachings and practices are well documented here on this forum and on many other websites, and they have been for many years now. The website I referred you to, Open-Letter.Org has been in continual publication since December of 2006 - almost 14 years now. So my point was, and still is, how is it that you don't know what has been considered off the mark, aberrational or heretical? I'm not saying that you should be in agreement with the assessments (I'm sure you're not) but I find it somewhat incredulous that you are unfamiliar with the arguments.
-

I am trying to ask this one question: Is the "man becomes God" teaching of WL the biggest theological issue others see with him?

Am I not communicating this question properly? Can perhaps someone else help answer this, or rephrase this question in a way that is understood?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I am trying to ask this one question: Is the "man becomes God" teaching of WL the biggest theological issue others see with him?

Am I not communicating this question properly? Can perhaps someone else help answer this, or rephrase this question in a way that is understood?

I'm not sure if this directly answers your question, but I went to the wikipedia "local church controversies" page to see what are listed as the theological issues and if there is any ranking. The first thing that became apparent is that obviously DCP has poured their (excuse me, the saints') hard-earned dollars into writing the whole thing. It's so blatantly written from LSM/DCP's false perspective. It's obviously they tried to back down from their standard arrogance and polemic style of writing, but they can't escape it and it's still very present with subtle language attempting to bias any reader. Anyway, my point in saying this is just that wikipedia shows deification as one of the main issues (I don't know if anyone can say it's THE main though.....not sure who would make that decision).

The site Unto referred you to, open-letter.org, could reasonably be assumed to be an attempt at an answer to the question. A large group of representative evangelicals got together and agreed to take issue with four main teachings.....one of them being "man becomes God"......so it seems the answer is "there isn't one main theological issue, but a handful".

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm not sure if this directly answers your question, but I went to the wikipedia "local church controversies" page to see what are listed as the theological issues and if there is any ranking. The first thing that became apparent is that obviously DCP has poured their (excuse me, the saints') hard-earned dollars into writing the whole thing. It's so blatantly written from LSM/DCP's false perspective. It's obviously they tried to back down from their standard arrogance and polemic style of writing, but they can't escape it and it's still very present with subtle language attempting to bias any reader. Anyway, my point in saying this is just that wikipedia shows deification as one of the main issues (I don't know if anyone can say it's THE main though.....not sure who would make that decision).

The site Unto referred you to, open-letter.org, could reasonably be assumed to be an attempt at an answer to the question. A large group of representative evangelicals got together and agreed to take issue with four main teachings.....one of them being "man becomes God"......so it seems the answer is "there isn't one main theological issue, but a handful".

Okay - thank you! That starts to an answer to my question. According to the signers on open-letter.org, the "man becomes God" teaching is one of four main theological problems others see with WL. That's basically all I was asking for.

So which of the four things listed there do people on this forum think is perhaps the biggest issue if you had to pick one? (personally, I think the "man becoming God" thing is probably the biggest issue, but the others could certainly be argued for too)

[Nell]

It should be noted that the “man becomes God” teaching did not surface until the mid-90’s. I would have never become involved with a group that taught such a shockingly obvious, cringeworthy, heresy, especially if that was my first exposure to “the church”.

Lee was always coming out with something “new”. It was his way to attract American young people who always wanted the latest and greatest. He boasted about having the “up to date speaking of God.” Last year’s “new way” became the “old way” and the next “new way” was ushered in with a bang! And you had better keep up, if you knew what was good for you.

On a visit to the Irving Texas branch of the LSM, one of the workers told me “we are baby gods!” I was visibly shaken at that “news”. Conversation over...get me out of here!!

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The site Unto referred you to, open-letter.org, could reasonably be assumed to be an attempt at an answer to the question. A large group of representative evangelicals got together and agreed to take issue with four main teachings.....one of them being "man becomes God"......so it seems the answer is "there isn't one main theological issue, but a handful".

See, now that wasn't so hard after all!
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

See, now that wasn't so hard after all!
-

Effective communication is a funny thing - we always seem to think we are doing it so well. (like my wife sometimes says, "Just saying the same thing louder doesn't make it more understandable!" )

I was thinking a little about the "man becomes God" teaching. It is not a defensible position as that is never said in the Bible. I certainly see some amazing and exceedingly lofty things the Bible says regarding our true identity - which we usually do not realize fully, and perhaps won't fully until that day. However, nowhere I see does it flatly say we become God!

To recap, the four errors stated in that open letter are:
1. Nature of God - Modalism
2. Man becoming God
3. Denouncing of Christianity
4. Suing other Christians
(the first two are more theological in nature, while the last two seem more like a practice)

So what is the biggest theological error in all y-alls minds (you can tell we know southerners)?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

See, now that wasn't so hard after all!
-

Yo Unto, for us emogi-challenged geriatrics, can you transcribe that string of faces into English? :P

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was thinking a little about the "man becomes God" teaching. It is not a defensible position as that is never said in the Bible. I certainly see some amazing and exceedingly lofty things the Bible says regarding our true identity - which we usually do not realize fully, and perhaps won't fully until that day. However, nowhere I see does it flatly say we become God!

SonsToGlory, this is exactly the view I ascribe to post-LC. Now I am not ultra-super-strict about this, rejecting each and every word (e.g. incarnation) which is not in the scriptures. I just reject extra-biblical ideas and teachings as truth.

Using WL's extreme pattern of interpretive inference, he could make the Bible say almost anything. And his followers believed him. The Blendeds even used Levitical instructions concerning leprosy to justify the destruction of Midwest LC's, i.e. their "replaster this house" nonsense because "leprous" young people used electric guitars to worship God.

What I mean by interpretive inference is the following, "if this then that, and if that then the following, and with the following we conclude that man becomes God." I bought into this line of reasoning for 30 years. This is exactly how we were convinced that every one of Lee's errors was honest-to-God truth. Chief example is WL's "one church one city" dogma.

But beloved Brethren what does the Bible say? Never stop asking that question!

The Apostles, including John, Peter, and Paul, had ample opportunity to say this, but they did not. There is a reason for this.

[PriestlyScribe]

Speaking of Cancel Culture - it appears that my recent comment on the "Humble" Hank Hanegraaff video got removed by the GFA Cancel Culture...

"@43:40 Hank's humility illustration reveals serious spiritual malpractice - "They offer superficial treatments for my people’s mortal wound." (Jeremiah 6:14a and 8:11a NLT) The following slanderous words were not picked up by a microphone in the back of some "trailer". [BTW God may choose to reveal Truth from a Trailer Park, or from a Stable]. Here's an Official (and un-repentant) Ministry Representative speaking "cultic" lies about an innocent man, before dozens of leaders, within the very group which Hank has just assured us he was wrong about! Is it possible Hank Hanegraaff needs to repent one more time - this time, for calling evil good? [Isaiah 5:20] - https://youtu.be/ocr-FKHycWk - MM"

P.S.

[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.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Apostles, including John, Peter, and Paul, had ample opportunity to say this, but they did not. There is a reason for this.

That speaks to my point well, and I have thought the same thing. The Apostles seem to go right up to the point of calling man God, but then don't. Why? There certainly must be a reason!

As we've said, our new ID in Christ is exceedingly lofty and I doubt we've realized a small fraction of what He's done in making us sons of God and sharing in His glory, but we should be careful lest we start adding things in there that are not stated clearly.

Let me say that I also don't agree with the two LC practices listed on the open-letter.org website: suing other Christians and denigrating them. These things ought not to be in the LC. The other theological problem they list (Modalism), I'm kinda "meh" about, as I've expressed on here several times. So UntoHim, for the record I agree with 3 of the 4 things against the LC listed on open-letter.org. (does that make me at least 3/4 of a forum member? )

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That speaks to my point well, and I have thought the same thing. The Apostles seem to go right up to the point of calling man God, but then don't. Why? There certainly must be a reason!

Of course there is a reason! Here is a few more:

• Is not this teaching reminiscent of the Serpent's temptation in the Garden?
• Take a look at the arrogant pride swelling up in those who espouse this teaching.
• Why do other errant cults like the Mormons teach that they become gods?
• Where is the good fruit of those in the LC proclaiming they are gods? Do "gods" really need to sue their brothers and sisters?

[Sons to Glory!]

I like your reasoning. Something also that came to me was how the disciples were rebuked by Jesus for thinking they should call down fire on the Samaritans (who worshipped differently). This seems akin to the LC denigrating and suing other Christians . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I like your reasoning. Something also that came to me was how the disciples were rebuked by Jesus for thinking they should call down fire on the Samaritans (who worshipped differently). This seems akin to the LC denigrating and suing other Christians . . .

The Lord also rebuked the disciples for wanting a special place in His kingdom, and thinking they were more special than others.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by HankHanegraaff

"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."

One has to really wonder how much brother Hank paid attention to what is actually taught in the Local Church of Witness Lee. "We can partake of the energies of God"? Where did Witness Lee teach that? Where did Ron Kangas, Minoru Chen or Ed Marks speak of "the energies of God". 6 years of "primary research" and all Hank could come up with is "we can partake of the essence of God". This dude is supposed to be a Christian apologist - critiquing and correcting the false teachings and practices of an aberrational sect - and not reinterpreting and repeating the very errors that he is supposed to be exposing.

"In the minds of many cult experts"? If his speaking on this YouTube video is any indication, Hanegraaff wouldn't know what is the mind of legitimate Christian apologists or "cult experts" if a list of their concerns were pinned to his forehead. The man seems to be oblivious and clueless - just the kind of sucker that the Local Church seeks after to do their bidding. God, I hate to say these kind of things about another brother in Christ, especially one that has suffered with a life-threatening disease for a number of years now, but when someone in Hank's position makes such public declarations, then some of us who know better are duty-bound to make a public response.
-

[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 . . . .

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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

I think meeting together as the church was great practice! Unfortunately, that container got filled with WL garbage, which like everything else he touched got corrupted. A man, a plan, a cult. The thing about this video that wows me is that Francis Chan seems sincere in his quest for Christian oneness and practice, and the other two, mainly HH seem like they put theology in a blender and pour out their new creation. We should be concerned about what’s in the glass they are filling with their blended drink- real concerned! When movers and shakers in the Christian world start talking like this, I think we can predict super bad practice will be spread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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

Actually they never practiced what they preached, and that hit home when we got quarantined. The ground of oneness teachings built walls between them and the rest of the body of Christ. Remember all of those messages about leaving captivity in Babylon and returning to the "proper ground" in Jerusalem?

[Nell]

The Body of Christ is the organism of the processed and consummated Triune God constituted with the believers in Christ, the many God-men, as the outward human framework; the life-giving Spirit, the compound Spirit, as the divine essence; the all-inclusive Christ, the unlimited Christ, as the divine element; and God the Father, who is over all and through all and in all, as the divine source.

I wonder what Hank thinks about this Leeism.

I found it in my stuff with no reference. I'm looking...

Nell

[Boxjobox]

I’m sure in the great, in depth research HH undertook, this divine truth, which he never knew in his role as Bible Answerman, was revealed to him as he hob-nobbed with all the local church folks living in this divine reality. This learning must have really humbled him, as he had to transform from being the know-it-all bible expositor, to realizing that all those years as a diligent theologian he missed the real Theo. I mean, the simple Christian just reading the scriptures should derive this revelation, I mean, it’s right there plain as day!

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually they never practiced what they preached, and that hit home when we got quarantined. The ground of oneness teachings built walls between them and the rest of the body of Christ. Remember all of those messages about leaving captivity in Babylon and returning to the "proper ground" in Jerusalem?

But Ohio - please remember that the Blended/LSM cartel began in about 2002 to publicly declare ITSELF to BE the body of Christ! In their twisted form of narcissistic group-think, the mid-west quarantine was spun as an organic purification process, initiated BY THE BODY to rid itself of leaven for the sake of the Holy New Jerusalem (which they were becoming).

For some strange reason, right after reading Nell's quoted Leeism, I was compelled to research the history of "fire eating"...

"Fire eating was a common part of Hindu, Sadhu, and Fakir performances to show spiritual attainment. It became a part of the standard sideshow acts in the late 1880s and was often seen as one of the entry-level skills for sideshow performers,[6]"

Witness Lee demonstrated his spiritual attainment and ministry prowess by means of high sounding terminology. And way too many of us drank it all in....

P.S.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

But Ohio - please remember that the Blended/LSM cartel began in about 2002 to publicly declare ITSELF to BE the body of Christ! In their twisted form of narcissistic group-think, the mid-west quarantine was spun as an organic purification process, initiated BY THE BODY to rid itself of leaven for the sake of the Holy New Jerusalem (which they were becoming).

Yes, they alone were the body of Christ, the testimony of Jesus, the prepared bride, consummating in the New Jerusalem! Meanwhile, we must first amputate one "diseased" leg in Brazil and one "gangrened" leg in the Midwest.

P.S. did you notice that the purge did not occur until the Blindeds first plundered the Midwest of $Millions to buy their new LaPalma campus? Oh yes, WL did teach that we must rob Egypt of her riches, so the Blendeds learned their lessons so well, were so "faithful to the vision," and how pleased WL will be when they all face him at the judgment seat.

[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.

[Acolyte4236]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One has to really wonder how much brother Hank paid attention to what is actually taught in the Local Church of Witness Lee. "We can partake of the energies of God"? Where did Witness Lee teach that? Where did Ron Kangas, Minoru Chen or Ed Marks speak of "the energies of God". 6 years of "primary research" and all Hank could come up with is "we can partake of the essence of God". This dude is supposed to be a Christian apologist - critiquing and correcting the false teachings and practices of an aberrational sect - and not reinterpreting and repeating the very errors that he is supposed to be exposing.

"In the minds of many cult experts"? If his speaking on this YouTube video is any indication, Hanegraaff wouldn't know what is the mind of legitimate Christian apologists or "cult experts" if a list of their concerns were pinned to his forehead. The man seems to be oblivious and clueless - just the kind of sucker that the Local Church seeks after to do their bidding. God, I hate to say these kind of things about another brother in Christ, especially one that has suffered with a life-threatening disease for a number of years now, but when someone in Hank's position makes such public declarations, then some of us who know better are duty-bound to make a public response.
-

See here for the backstory on the real Hanegraaff. I used to work there.

https://energeticprocession.wordpres...ankadox-files/