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

[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?

[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 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.

[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 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

[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.