Hanegraaff and LeHaye

We are close enemies, aren't we? It only is in politics, PJ. Politics is a way to pass time only. The world has a way of going on no matter what happens in politics. My advice to you is to take theology very seriously and to take politics as a joke about human folly.

To those who like Hank, let me say that things are settled among him, the Martins, and Kennedy in my opinion. I remember CRI for the last 6 years of Walter's life during the 1980s. Walter was always on the firing line. I like Walter and maybe you would like to listen to Walter for free on his website.

This debate was handled well. If you like Hank, the Lord bless you.

cmg

 

I didn't know that CRI was dead; I thought is was a useful source of good information.

Having said that, Kennedy's letter does seem to be a pretty big blow against Mr. Hanegraaff. While reading the letter, my mind raced ahead to what could possibly be interpreted as "heresy", and I said to myself "I'll bet it's the book about the Zodiac". Sure enough. Hanegraaff is off base and grasping at straws on this one, IMO. I've read Kennedy's book and it's a wonderful book. Hanegraaff has to know better.

It appears to me that this whole thing has BIG elements of personal vendetta, with at least some going in both directions. I'm not saying on the part of everyone, but simply from both sides. That being the case, we'd better be wary of every piece of information.

F'rinstance, the CT article cites something like $3100 paid to Mrs. Hanegraaff for "personal expenses". If whe is working with the ministry, that amount could easily be chewed up in a business trip or two. I don't know...I'm just saying "be careful how you interpret the info", especially when people have chosen sides, as seems to be the case.

I am beginning to see that it doesn't look too good for the Answer Man, though I still have an open mind and need more info and time.

 

Politics is no joke. It greatly affects the very lives of all people, some to the point of life and death. Those involved in politics are real people, some good and some bad, but real people. There is no excuse for slandering someone, and witing it off as "politics". I don't want to debate that here and get off topic, but I couldn't let your comment stand without pointing this out.

 

OK, PJ, the CRI ain't what it used to be. I myself now get my information on the cults from the SBC North American Mission Board interfaith evangelism department. They just came out with a new DVD on Jehovah's False Witnesses. I have soured on para-church organizations. The internet has provided a source for Walter's recordings, and I am in the process of buying his CDs for $6 at the rate of one or two at a time every now and then. You know that I am as poor as a church mouse as God leaves me lower middle-class. This worn-out computer was a bonus from a former employer who lost a lot of business right after Nine Eleven.

Like you, PJ, I like D. James Kennedy and turned to him after Walter's death. However, I now have turned to Adrian Rogers in Memphis with Love Worth Finding or Ed Young in Houston with The Winning Walk.

 

Adrian Rogers seems great, the little I've seen/heard. If you ever run across a series called "word pictures", it's first-rate. HERE is teir website.

 

"Hanky Boy" is not solid and is not a teacher but a self proclaimed so called apologist. His background is in media and not in thelogy.
He is good at media but so are the

 

"Hanky Boy" is not solid and is not a teacher but a self proclaimed so called apologist. His background is in media and not in thelogy.
He is good at media but so was Dan Rather.

 

"Hanky Boy" is not solid and is not a teacher but a self proclaimed so called apologist. His background is in media and not in thelogy.
He is good at media but so was Dan Rather. </font>[/QUOTE]Does HH have a degree in journalism or something?

 

I'm wondering why folks would believe some cat who has a CLEARLY-WRONG doctrine such as Hank has about the AC and the trib. Anyone can mistakenly believe something, but HIS stuff is so CLEARLY off....

 

More on Martin at:

http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040310/GRABBAGSELECTION/9999587

and

http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/ccp/martin.htm

Hanegraaf radio program is looking like infomercials.

 

Of course many would say the same thing about your eschatology. Perhaps Hank takes Rev 1:1,3 seriously.

 

Yeah. Why would anyone take someone like Martin Luther seriously?

 

FYI,

http://www.answers.org/newsletters/hankresp.html

Hanegraaff's response to Kennedy.

&lt;&gt;&lt;

YIC

Corry

 

It's very interesting to read Hank's side. He seems to have very impressive documentation to back up his points, too.

I get the impression that all of this could have been prevented if the two guys would've sat down in person and talked it out.

I also get the distinct impression that Dr. Kennedy has listened to too many rumors without getting the facts.

I think Hank's strategy of not wanting to fan the flames by addressing these things in public is good - but there comes a time when a person must respond. It seems his letters have not worked.

 

Grasshopper:Of course many would say the same thing about your eschatology.

Talk is cheap. How about proof from history?


Perhaps Hank takes Rev 1:1,3 seriously.

And perhaps NOT, seeing as how it was written AFTER the events occurred which he describes as the Trib & the AC's appearance...also given the fact that JESUS told John that the trib and the AC were in the FUTURE.

 

This is a matter of debate - not quite the open and shut case you propose.

This "fact" is your opinion - others hold to a different opinion.

Judging Hank because his views regarding the end times are different from yours is pretty harsh. Most of us have differing views on some aspect of scripture. Just as long as we agree on the fundimentals we should get along fine.

 

Is it? Alot of people that study their bible would disagree with you.

 

Has anybody ever thought that BOTH sides may be right? We all know the Bible is written for more than one generation and what is there to say that God didn't intend certain portions to be primarily interpreted by the Jews before 70AD to be one way, while during the 21st century we find another prophecy in the same words?

Is God not capable of complex multiple meanings such as this?

Obviously, the many of the Old Testament books were specifically written for the Jews of the time; but we today can gleen important facts that relate to our lives today.

Remember, the Bible is the Living Word of God and the entire book obviously has lessons for those of 1st century (at least for the books and stories passed around and talked about in person) and those of us in the 21st century. (My point above is that I realize that the canon was far from closed in the 1st century, but many books were spread among the churches and a lot of this information is documenting what Jesus and others actually said.)

 

I agree GB. Maybe Dr. Kennedy personalized HH's review of his books. Hanegraaff has a right to call it like he sees it.

 

Of course, let me qualify my post.

This only applies to the parts that are not mutually exclusive such as the rapture.

When Mathew mentions "two will be sleeping in bed, one taken the other left" "Two in the field, one taken the other left". Then it mentions to run for the hills, don't turn back.

Does this mean that when the rapture occurs people are supposed to head for the hills, or is this telling a true story that happened when Rome slaughtered Palestine by killing just about exactly 1/2 of the people and only those that survived, headed for the hills?

What is also meant by this "generation" shall not pass before these things come about.

Pardon me for paraphrasing, I do not have a handy Bible to quote from.

But, it appears that at least some parts of Hannigraph's theory might be true. Besides, when Nero is added up in Greek it comes to 666. Pretty plain to a person living in the first century who is used to using the alphabet in this manner. But, does this also prevent an anti-Christ from appearing near the end of time?