RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute.

RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

earthless -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/29/2008 11:06:28 AM)
Hank does not believe all of Revelation has been fulfilled. I just heard him last night and he again reiterated his eschatology position.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/29/2008 4:58:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead GrahamCracker, I just saw the moderators note, so don't answer my last post - answer this one instead. Tell me how it is possible that Hank's belief that all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century is really a belief that only part of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century? Mushhead, When I looked at the quotes you provided, I don't think they establish that Hank believes all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. Look. The concluding statements of Revelation 22 are summarizing the contents of the book. They would not necessarily have to be interpreted as stating the entire book had been fulfilled by the first century.

cybrjewls -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/29/2008 7:57:58 PM)
LOL!! There are 21 other chapters in revelation to account for. Looks like Hank would prove erroneous, by history, that the trumpet and bowl Judgments have already occurred. Test everything, hold on to the the good. quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead GrahamCracker, I just saw the moderators note, so don't answer my last post - answer this one instead. Tell me how it is possible that Hank's belief that all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century is really a belief that only part of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century? Mushhead, When I looked at the quotes you provided, I don't think they establish that Hank believes all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. Look. The concluding statements of Revelation 22 are summarizing the contents of the book. They would not necessarily have to be interpreted as stating the entire book had been fulfilled by the first century.

earthless -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/29/2008 10:34:32 PM)
Prophetica, Hank does not believe all of Revelation has been fulfilled. I just heard him last night and he again reiterated his eschatology position. And this thread, per the mods, is not to be used to discuss eschatology.

mushhead -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 5:01:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: earthless Hank does not believe all of Revelation has been fulfilled. I just heard him last night and he again reiterated his eschatology position. earthless, what parts of Revelation did he say are yet to be fulfilled? I am not disputing your post, I'm just curious where he stands, because in the interview he twice said that when John wrote the time of fulfillment was near, that meant the prophecies were fulfilled in the first not the 21st centuries. So, I am just curious which prophecies Hank believes are yet to be fulfilled.

mushhead -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 5:16:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead GrahamCracker, I just saw the moderators note, so don't answer my last post - answer this one instead. Tell me how it is possible that Hank's belief that all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century is really a belief that only part of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century? Mushhead, When I looked at the quotes you provided, I don't think they establish that Hank believes all of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. Look. The concluding statements of Revelation 22 are summarizing the contents of the book. They would not necessarily have to be interpreted as stating the entire book had been fulfilled by the first century. I'm not sure how the concluding statements of Revelation enter into our discussion. Will you elaborate? I do agree with your previous post that different people categorize these views differently. One thing we need to keep in mind is that a full preterist interpretation does not require a belief that the resurrection has already taken place; likewise it does not require the rejection of a future fulfillment of chapters 19-22. I know that believing a future fulfillment of the final chapters of Revelation typically indicates partial preterism, but we must remember that the heart of the preterist view is that God was encouraging the church to endure a particularly violent period of persecution. The ultimate hope for enduring persecution is the final victory of Christ and our future resurrection (two points that Hank continually asserts). The final chapters of Revelation point to those events, but in the full preterist interpretation nothing else in Revelation refers to the events that encompass, or lead up to the end times. Partial preterists, do however, assert that some aspects of Revelation outside of the final chapters are referring to end time events. Of course, some partial preterists, limit the end time content of Revelation to the final chapters. The difference between the partial and full, is that full preterists do not believe that the book is prophetic in any way. The references to the future resurrection and final judgment are metaphorical portrayals of a literal future event. I'm curious which is Hanks position. I think I will call the Bible Answer Man show next week and ask Hank himself.

mushhead -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 5:42:27 AM)
prophetica, Hank is constantly telling people that the best way to guard oneself against false teachers and false religions that masquerade as the truth is by becoming so familiar with the Bible that counterfiet teachings will stand out like a sore thumb. That said, much of what the CRI does is: 1-research false teachers and such, thus providing more information about false teachers than the average person has the time or resources to discover on his own. 2-provide Biblical responses that are useful for warning and informing the new or immature Christian who does not yet have the Biblical knowledge necessary to understand how or why something is false. 3-provides information on false teachings that are especially deceptive, i.e. mormonism, that use Biblical terminology but infuse the terms with different definitions. 4-CRI provides tips about how to witness to members false religions. There are some things that we must avoid when talking to members of false religions. Christians who encounter a member of any other false religion can seek information from CRI about how to best witness to them, or to, at least, learn what not to do. So CRI has a useful and legitimate ministry. If I understand you correctly, you are accusing Hank of being prideful and puffed up with knowledge. If that is what you are saying, I must disagree with your judgment. I disagree with Hank at times, and I think his show comes across, at times, as the radio version of an infomercial; but I don't know how any of us can make a judgment about what is in the man's heart.

earthless -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 3:08:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: prophetica Dear Hank's representative. This thread is regarding the theology that Hank teaches and his ministry as well. quote: ORIGINAL: earthless Prophetica, Hank does not believe all of Revelation has been fulfilled. I just heard him last night and he again reiterated his eschatology position. And this thread, per the mods, is not to be used to discuss eschatology. Ha ha! How did I become his representative? The only thing you seem to be concerned about is believer's differing views on eschatology. I thought the moderators said we couldn't discuss those different schools of thought in this thread? If so, please let me know.

earthless -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 3:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead quote: ORIGINAL: earthless Hank does not believe all of Revelation has been fulfilled. I just heard him last night and he again reiterated his eschatology position. earthless, what parts of Revelation did he say are yet to be fulfilled? I am not disputing your post, I'm just curious where he stands, because in the interview he twice said that when John wrote the time of fulfillment was near, that meant the prophecies were fulfilled in the first not the 21st centuries. So, I am just curious which prophecies Hank believes are yet to be fulfilled. I believe he responded to that in one of the three links I posted on page one - have you read them? I have to run to the airport to drop a family member off, but I will look at the links again when I return.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 6:30:54 PM)
Mushhead said: quote: I'm not sure how the concluding statements of Revelation enter into our discussion. Will you elaborate? The paragraphs (the dialogue) you quoted referenced Rev. 22:6. I am thinking that since it is the last chapter of Revelation, it is tantamount to saying that everything prior has already been fulfilled. Maybe I misinterpreted your interpretation of the dialogue. In any event, 22:6 is part of the summary of the book. Insofar as your request that I elaborate, I'd rather not lest I get caught explaining something that I am not fully informed on yet. mushhead, I disagree with your following statement. Following that is a quote from the Wikipedia article on Preterism. But, hey, who am I? I'm not an expert. mushhead said: quote: One thing we need to keep in mind is that a full preterist interpretation does not require a belief that the resurrection has already taken place; likewise it does not require the rejection of a future fulfillment of chapters 19-22. I know that believing a future fulfillment of the final chapters of Revelation typically indicates partial preterism, but we must remember that the heart of the preterist view is that QUOTE Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by several other names:... UNQUOTE Emphasis mine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Digrieze -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (3/30/2008 8:17:55 PM)
Just to get back to the original post: Prophetica, Earthless covered the biblical points well in her first reply, so no point in repeating it. Simply said, yes, I believe it's not only biblically allowed it's biblically commanded. Should it be a separate "ministry", probably not, but since modern christians seem to be intent at avoiding their personal responsibilities in this regard the need for ministries to help us in those areas like CRI or others like Ravi Zacharias with biblical apoligetics has become necessary. Personally I think there have been times Hanegraff has been far more abrasive than necessary in his pronouncements, particularly in his younger years (could age have brought wisdom?). On the other hand, whyenever I hear one of his targets defend themselves by explaining why they don't have to follow a particular commandment of the bible in justifying their stance I know Hanegraff was right, no matter how much he might remind me of a loose sandblaster in his demenor at times. To me the Bible is the standard. If you are intentionally avoiding or negating any part of it in justifying your teaching you're simply wrong. (warning: "Hal Lindseys True Believers" won't want to hear this!) As far as the discussion of Hanegraffs eschatological beliefs I don't think you can judge much regarding salvation or authority on eschatological position. The four major (and other minor) interpretations of eschatological passages are all faithful to the Bible in that they deal with the passages involved, they simply differ on interpretation of those passages. In this area I think we need to differ with Grace and remember we are to make disciples of Jesus, not disciples of Darby or any earthly interpreter (however right or wrong they may be).

cybrjewls -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/2/2008 9:40:29 AM)
Hello! I heard Hank on the radio last night misrepresenting the sufferings that the Savior endured while on earth. He stated that Christ did not suffer in Spirit, but only in body. I was very mad about it, and turned his program off. Yet, it is written, instead: "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me." After the suffering of his soul, For: the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life... regarding the Bread that came down From Heaven. For: you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. As for those who seemed to be important�whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance�those men added nothing to my message. These things are Christian Teachings and Sound Doctrine to believe in. For it is written: you are to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. What would God demand for a soul; the sufferings His Soul endured starting with the 'sorrow to the point of death' that He experienced in the garden of Gethsemane. Therefore, He suffered before being tried, beaten, and whipped; He suffered before they had taken Him to the Cross at Golgatha. We know that the second death is the spiritual death; and it is forever. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. For if Judgment starts with the House of God; where will it end?! It seems that Hank cannot make his money for his orgianzation unless 'Christianity is in 'crisis'. How noble. quote: ORIGINAL: earthless

earthless -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/2/2008 9:57:04 AM)
prophetica, Why the name change? Anyways, do you have an audio clip of yesterday's broadcast? I will see if I can find it later today.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 6:37:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: .prophetic. Hello! I heard Hank on the radio last night misrepresenting the sufferings that the Savior endured while on earth. He stated that Christ did not suffer in Spirit, but only in body. I was very mad about it, and turned his program off. Yet, it is written, instead: I don't think Hank said that Jesus didn't suffer emotionally. I don't think Hank was saying that there was no suffering leading up to His crucifixion. I'd be surprised if he did mean that. He was probably saying there was no suffering after He died physically. Along that line, I think I have heard him say similar things. Frankly, I agree with that. "Soul" also refers to emotional distress. That is to say, anguish about pain and so forth. One could also say that Jesus was distressed about His abandonment to the cross. I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered. It's not as though Hank were coming up with new revelation stuff not in scripture and claiming it came from God.

mushhead -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 5:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead GrahamCracker, thanks for the info in both your posts! I have another question: What type of preterist are those who believe that all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and that all of Revelation was nothing more than a message of encouragement to the Christians of that period who were suffering persecution at the hands of the Roman empire? (Additional information: this group does not believe the resurrection has already taken place, for that is an entirely different issue. This group believes that Revelation was fulfilled in the first or second century, and has nothing at all to say about end time events.) That sounds like Full-Preterists to me. I hope you aren't going to tell me Hank Haanegraf says that. quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker QUOTE Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by several other names:... UNQUOTE [sm=yummy.gif]

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 5:33:11 PM)
Mushhead, Don't feel so bad. I have had discussions with non-preterists and preterists. Many people are very confused and there is a lot of disinformation going on. People sometimes say: "If you were to believe Preterism you would have to believe "X' " and they will come up with some off-the-wall belief. It usually happens when I try to engage a discussion on Preterism. I discover that those who oppose it know even less about it than I do, and I frankly wouldn't brag about my knowledge to anyone.

bride48 -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 5:45:54 PM)
I know nothing about it, but I do know whatever position Hannergraff holds doesn't discredit his ministry.

cybrjewls -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 6:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered. It's not as though Hank were coming up with new revelation stuff not in scripture and claiming it came from God. <<I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered.>> Preachers, 'teachers', and pastors claim, at many times, that they are speaking concerning the Revelation of Jesus Christ in the flesh in accordance with what is written. ie: 'God does not contradict himself'.... 'God this or that'. These things are not, necessarily written anywhere in the Scriptures themselves; though. Isn't it a presumption to speak on things at times? And, especially when people say things concerning God that are extra biblical. I hear such things a lot when preachers speak. Yet it is written: if anyone speaks, they should speak as if they are speaking the Words of God.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 6:51:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: .prophetic. quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered. It's not as though Hank were coming up with new revelation stuff not in scripture and claiming it came from God. <<I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered.>> Let's remember that the scriptures you reference have to not only accommodate your view but they have to demand that it is the only logical interpretation as well. Rather than force-fitting scriptures to accommodate your views (like a square peg in a round hole), I would hope that you could come up with something a little more substantive. Frankly, the lack of concrete scriptures that leave no better explanation is exactly the reason those guys rely on personal revelation. Let's take Eph. 4:9 first. You are saying, I suppose: 1) Jesus went and suffered in hell for us. I have to ask, how does that scripture compel me to believe that? Even if I believe that "the lower regions" meant hell or some intermediary between-heaven-and-earth type thing, why would I believe Jesus suffered there? 2) Lower regions. I believe it is more logical to believe that the "lower regions" refers to something far simpler---the earthly plane on which you and I now live. Since scripture plainly teaches the incarnation--that Jesus came from heaven and dwelt among men--that explanation is the most logical. 3) The other place where He lived is where He lived before He was incarnated--heaven. He was there before and He is there now. So we have much clearer scriptures stating 2 places where He existed/exists. What simpler explanation should we want, some obscure revelation coming out of no where--where those guys look for all the world to be motivated by greed? They brag about God making them rich. Enrichment in earthly wealth would encourage me to try out new revelations, were I so inclined. John 6:63. I am not sure how that helps prove your case. Are you suggesting that the mere claim for spiritualness and spirituality on the part of these guys is proof-positive that they possess those qualities? I really see no relationship between our disagreement and the scripture reference to John 6:63.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 6:54:05 PM)
quote: ie: 'God does not contradict himself'.... 'God this or that'. These things are not, necessarily written anywhere in the Scriptures themselves; though. Isn't it a presumption to speak on things at times? And, especially when people say things concerning God that are extra biblical. I hear such things a lot when preachers speak. Yet it is written: if anyone speaks, they should speak as if they are speaking the Words of God. Well, then. In posting those words, you indite people who you appear to be defending. If I were to look for presumptiveness, I find it first and foremost in the people that Hank is challenging. At least he isn't claiming to speak new revelation from God. He would claim that scripture alone is his source and that he himself can make mistakes.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 6:56:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bride48 I know nothing about it, but I do know whatever position Hannergraff holds doesn't discredit his ministry. Welcome back. I haven't heard from you in a while. I would add that Hank has his own share of mistakes. I have no way of confirming nor challenging his own integrity. I would only say that his challenge to the faith prosperity ministers is not among them.

cybrjewls -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 7:13:10 PM)
Dearest GrahamCracker; Hello in The Lord Jesus Christ! Please notice that Scriptures do not teach that everyone will not have to give an account for every stray word they have spoken. The Word of God is like the force of gravity. It applies to everyone, equally; in the manner in which God so desires it to on earth. For it is written: for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker quote: ie: 'God does not contradict himself'.... 'God this or that'. These things are not, necessarily written anywhere in the Scriptures themselves; though. Isn't it a presumption to speak on things at times? And, especially when people say things concerning God that are extra biblical. I hear such things a lot when preachers speak. Yet it is written: if anyone speaks, they should speak as if they are speaking the Words of God. Well, then. In posting those words, you indite people who you appear to be defending. If I were to look for presumptiveness, I find it first and foremost in the people that Hank is challenging. At least he isn't claiming to speak new revelation from God. He would claim that scripture alone is his source and that he himself can make mistakes.

cybrjewls -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 7:18:53 PM)
Please show me how you explain 1 peter 3:18-22; I think you forgot to mention it. quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker quote: ORIGINAL: .prophetic. quote: ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered. It's not as though Hank were coming up with new revelation stuff not in scripture and claiming it came from God. <<I see no reason to believe that a non-material part of Him went elsewhere and suffered.>> Let's remember that the scriptures you reference have to not only accommodate your view but they have to demand that it is the only logical interpretation as well. Rather than force-fitting scriptures to accommodate your views (like a square peg in a round hole), I would hope that you could come up with something a little more substantive. Frankly, the lack of concrete scriptures that leave no better explanation is exactly the reason those guys rely on personal revelation. Let's take Eph. 4:9 first. You are saying, I suppose: 1) Jesus went and suffered in hell for us. I have to ask, how does that scripture compel me to believe that? Even if I believe that "the lower regions" meant hell or some intermediary between-heaven-and-earth type thing, why would I believe Jesus suffered there? 2) Lower regions. I believe it is more logical to believe that the "lower regions" refers to something far simpler---the earthly plane on which you and I now live. Since scripture plainly teaches the incarnation--that Jesus came from heaven and dwelt among men--that explanation is the most logical. 3) The other place where He lived is where He lived before He was incarnated--heaven. He was there before and He is there now. So we have much clearer scriptures stating 2 places where He existed/exists. What simpler explanation should we want, some obscure revelation coming out of no where--where those guys look for all the world to be motivated by greed? They brag about God making them rich. Enrichment in earthly wealth would encourage me to try out new revelations, were I so inclined. John 6:63. I am not sure how that helps prove your case. Are you suggesting that the mere claim for spiritualness and spirituality on the part of these guys is proof-positive that they possess those qualities? I really see no relationship between our disagreement and the scripture reference to John 6:63.

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 7:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: .prophetic. Please show me how you explain 1 peter 3:18-22; I think you forgot to mention it. Nope. I didn't see it. You embedded three scriptures? When you do that, how am I supposed to know that there were 3 and not 2? I would have to click on each part of the sentence and see if a new link comes up. If you want me to discuss three scriptures, you might just post the references plainly or tell me outright that you embedded 3 scriptures so that I will know not to miss one of them. quote: ORIGINAL: .prophetic. Please show me how you explain 1 peter 3:18-22; I think you forgot to mention it. Nope. I didn't see it. You embedded three scriptures? When you do that, how am I supposed to know that there were 3 and not 2? I would have to click on each part of the sentence and see if a new link comes up. If you want me to discuss three scriptures, you might just post the references plainly or tell me outright that you embedded 3 scriptures so that I will know not to miss one of them. 1 Peter 3:18-22 There a number of interpretations that people give. Frankly, I don't know for certain what it means. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John Walvoord and Roy Zuck says on page 851, the following. QUOTE The "spirits" (pneumasin. a term usually applied to supernatural beings but also used at least once to refer to human "spirits"; cv Heb. 12:23) are described in 1 Peter 3:20 as those who were disobedient when God waited patiently for Noah to finish building the ark. They had rebelled against the message of God during the 120 years the ark was being built. God declared He would not tolerate people's wickedness forever, but would extend His patience for only 120 years (Gen. 6:3)...The "spirits" referred to in 1 Peter 3:20 are probably the souls of the evil human race that existed in the days of Noah. Those "spirits" are now "in prison"... The problem remains as to when Christ preached to those "spirits." Peter's explanation of the resurrection of Christ (3:18) "by the Spirit" brought to mind that the preincarnate Christ was actually in Noah, ministering through him, by means of the Holy Spirit...Peter (1:11) referred to the "Spirit of Christ" in the Old Testament prophets [context, context, context--GrahamCracker]. Later he described Noah as "a preacher of righteousness" ( 2 Peter 2:5). The Spirit of Christ preached through Noah to the ungodly humans who, at the time of Peter's writing, were "spirits in prison" awaiting final judgment. The interpretation seems to fit the general theme of the section.... UNQUOTE The claim is that Jesus suffered "in the Spirit realm." Where is that plainly taught in 1 Peter 3?

GrahamCracker -> RE: Hank Hanegraaf of The Christian Research Institute. (4/3/2008 7:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: .prophetic. For it is written: for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. So what? So the prosperity pimps run around condemning the rest of us for "religious garbage" and you don't condemn nor challenge them? That scripture doesn't apply to me. I am not the one going around preaching prosperity. They are. The scripture is not telling us to never judge. It is telling us to judge without hypocrisy. That's the context.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI