This provides a critical analysis of the book Christianity In Crisis (CinC) (purchase from Amazon.Com), which was written by Hank Hanegraaff.
This will refute a number of the errors in the book as well as exposing the many logical fallacies that have been committed in its writing. The book has wide appeal due to several factors including the national radio "pulpit" of its author, Hank Hanegraaff, and the ministry to which he has been attached (Christian Research Institute).
The book itself has the "appearance" of being well researched with over 700 footnotes.
Very little accurate information is available from the Word of Faith (WoF) in this controversy. This paper will attempt to fill part of that void.
Topics to be covered include:
The most difficult part of the task is to choose which of the many items to include. This paper will attempt to limit the total to about fifty five fatal flaws.
The logical fallacies covered are:
For a good book on the subject of logical fallacies see D. A. Carsons book Exegetical Fallacies. Credit goes to this book for the categories of fallacies listed above. "Credit" goes to the author of CinC for committing the fallacies to be used as illustrations.
Another great book is by Bob and Gretchen Passantino who are CRI researchers. Their book is entitled Witch Hunt and has a superb section on WoF teacher Casey Treat. The Passantinos defend Treat against the claim that he teaches man will become Gods (a false claim repeated numerous times by the author of CinC against the other WoF teachers). Note that the forward for Witch Hunt was written by Walter Martin. Presumably Martin must have agreed with Witch Hunt to have given it such a glowing review. See pages 145-156 of Witch Hunt for the Casey Treat section. I would suggest the author of CinC could learn something from this book by one of his own.
The author of CinC makes quite a few leaps of illogic. One example is from CinC-250. The author of CinC states the following:
If healing is in the atonement and is accessed by faith, then those who die due to lack of faith must remain in their sins. They die without hope. Why? Because if both healing and salvation are included in this passage, they must be accessed in the same way. And if one does not have enough faith to make oneself well, it follows that he cannot have enough faith to be saved. Therefore those who die physically due to lack of faith must also wind up in hell for the same reason.
There are many problems with this arguments. It assumes that faith for healing and faith for salvation are the same kind of faith. This argument is contrary to the faith teachers (like Kenneth Hagin) who have said "Thank God for Doctors, they keep people alive long enough to get faith". Also, it assumes that faith for salvation is harder to get than for healing. The fact is that the verse (Isaiah 53:4) refers to both healing and salvation. The author of CinC talks out of both sides of his mouth on this verse (see later).
This whole argument is putting words into the mouth of the faith teachers. The faith teachers do not believe:
Certainly the author of CinC must believe that those who died without faith will end up in hell. This is attempt to confuse saving faith which requires faith in something more abstract and invisible with faith in something happening when it is physical and "in your face". The man with the withered arm sees his arm every time he looks down and sees how impossible it all is. We do not see the impossibility of our own salvation in the same way, perhaps we should since God really did a big thing in providing His Son to die for us. This is like the person who is an alcoholic, abusive, womanizing, liar and becomes a Christian, and yet can not give up smoking. Should the man question whether God is real just because he has a persistent sin that he can not seem to shake even after salvation? The smallest things are sometimes much harder than the bigger things.
This form of logical fallacy is called a "straw man" from the phrase "he built a straw man and knocked it down himself. This form of fallacy can usually be found with the multiple if this then that repeated many times. All it takes to defeat the argument is to disprove one of the if ... that phrases. In this case they can all be disproved.
All sickness does not necessarily include suffering. All suffering is not only sickness. When a Scripture refers to suffering, it is important to determine the following:
This is a categorical fallacy committed time and again in CinC. The author fails to differentiate between suffering and sickness. This is a categorical fallacy. In the Scripture, most suffering is from the persecution that comes with proclaiming the Word of God. This is the type of suffering that Jesus endured on the cross. Jesus was never sick in the Scriptures, but suffered persecution at the hands of unrighteous men.
If suffering is caused by our own wrongdoing, then it is not Godly, but is the fruit of our own actions. The author of CinC says that the man born blind (CinC-267) was made that way as "a sovereign act". To the author of CinC, this means that God made the man blind in order to heal him. This is like asking the clock repairman why he fixed the clock and having him reply, "I broke the clock just so that I could fix it". This makes for an irrational clock repairman and would make an irrational God. Jesus came to set free those that were in bondage. It was a sovereign act of God to heal the man born blind, not that the man would be born blind. The author of CinC points to man born blind as proof that God is the author of sickness (CinC-268). Actually, the verse simply proves that God did not want the man to be blind, he wanted him to see, that is why Jesus healed the man.
To illustrate the point CinC-264, lists 2 Cor 12:9b, 10 as proof that Paul suffered. There is no doubt to even a casual reader of the Scriptures that Paul suffered. The question is how did Paul suffer, and why did he suffer. Paul suffered insults, hardships, persecutions, difficulties, all for the sake of preaching the Word of God. Why does the author of CinC include this in the section on Sin and Sickness (CinC-261 to CinC-269)? Apparently he includes it because there are so few Scriptures that show that God wants people to suffer sickness (and he must believe that this is one of them). To take verses that apply to suffering persecution for the sake of the Word and apply it to physical illness is a categorical fallacy and is wrong.
This is exemplified by the following quote from CinC:
For years I have preached on this subject with dramatic urgency, In addition, I recall countless hours spent with Dr. Walter Martin (founder of the Christian Research Institute) before his death, discussing this catastrophe and its implications for the historic Christian faith. (CinC-12)
Beyond the gross hyperbole used, (countless and catastrophe), note that this is an appeal to authority of the worse kind. It relies on secret closed-door conversations and is totally unverifiable since Martin died in 1989, several years before the publication of CinC. For instance, I could state that Walter had changed his opinion about WoF and had even decided to become a WoF pastor secretly before his death (he did not, this is just for example). I could further state that this information was from secret conversations that I had with him. Why should this be believed? This is not evidence, but heresay, which is even worse than a simple appeal to authority.
In the tape series on the WoF, Martin does not call WoF a cult. The author of CinC responds to this by saying that things got worse with WoF as time progressed, but gives no evidence for this. The WoF doctrines have not changed in any substantial point that takes them from where they were when Martin made his tapes on the WoF. What specific teachings can be shown to have changed between the Martin tapes and CinC? The obvious conclusion is that either Martin was incorrect and WoF was really a cult at the time, or CinC is incorrect and WoF is not a cult.
Another example is the use of the phrase "kingdom of the cults" (CinC-27, CinC-71) in describing WoF. This is a blatant attempt to appeal to the memory of Walter Martin and his landmark book, "The Kingdom of the Cults". This is done as if to imply that if Martin was alive that he would have included WoF in a new edition of the book.
There are many examples of this in CinC. Some of the more flagrant examples include:
By these statements, and many other similar ones, the author of CinC has slandered a large number of WoF teachers.
As a note there are many parallels between the author of CinC and the Mormon leader Brigham Young (they both were the leader after the founder, they both took the organizations into new directions, etc). Just because there are superficial parallels does not prove that they are the same any more than the author of CinC is the same as Brigham Young. This is a way of attacking someone that is intellectually dishonest. It is a form of guilt by association with no real association between the two persons.
The author of CinC would do well to follow his own advice from CinC-219:
Jesus, however, had a totally different perspective. He made it clear that as mere mortals we are incapable of infallibly judging another man's heart.
At the start of the book there are a number of statements that leave the "open minded" reader with the conclusions that he must reach by reading the book. These include such statements as:
This fallacy is to assign pure motives to your own work, but to assume (without evidence) that others have impure motives. This can be seen by contrasting the statements by the author of CinC about CinC versus the statements of the author about the WoF teachers. This quote is from the author of CinC about his own work:
This book has one major concern: to expose heresy. I do not enjoy the task, but it must be done. to refuse this biblical duty in favor of more pleasant options is to demean Christ and to belittle the church He bought with His won blood. I had no choice but to write CinC (CinC-13).
Another similar quote is the following:
... it is my hope that this book may rescue at least some of Christ's sheep from a terrible destiny (CinC-15).
Contrast these with the statements about the motivations of the WoF teachers.
... seem willing to do and say virtually anything to silence opposition and rally support (CinC-12)
Note that this outrageous statement never is backed up. Where is the evidence that the WoF teachers will do that? This claim is another hysterical conspiracy theory to suppress the truth. Actually, the opposite is true as followers of the author of CinC have pressured Christian bookstores to remove the writings of the WoF teachers threatening boycott. There is definitely a conspiracy to have the writings of the WoF teachers suppressed. Try asking for a Kenneth Hagin book at most Christian bookstores and learn the lesson. This conspiracy is inspired by the author of CinC, but not directed individually by him.
Another quote attributing motives the the WoF teachers is:
... stand to lose millions of dollars if they are opposed (CinC-12)
This is a way of saying that the WoF teachers are just in it for the money. Again no evidence is presented for this claim, just like the other claims.
The final quote is:
...ridicule the biblical Christ... (CinC-13)
The reason these quotes are important is that they demonstrate the falsehood of the claims by the author of CinC that he is not attacking peoples motives, just their teachings. This is simply not true from the evidence of his own writings. This seriously weakens his case against the WoF teachers.
Also known as improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle. An example of this is to paint those with different views as outside the scope of orthodoxy. It is to create a false disjunction since there is a middle ground between your own view and non-orthodoxy, that is still orthodox.
That is illustrated by a number of points in CinC, particularly on the subject of the atonement. WoF teachers contend that Jesus won the victory through the resurrection and according to CinC down play the importance of the death on the cross. The author of CinC down plays the resurrection, and concentrates instead on the blood of Christ. In fact it is the whole event that we base our Christian hope on. Death without resurrection would not be a future hope for us. It would provide an example of a good man unjustly suffering and dying, but not the vindication that the resurrection provides. Resurrection presupposes being resurrected from something (namely death). Without the death, the resurrection would be meaningless. It is a false disjunction to appeal only to the death of Christ. Both the death and resurrection are important and necessary. When the gospel is referred to in 1 Cor 15, it is the death, burial, and resurrection that is defined as the gospel, and not one particular isolated event.
To attack the WoF teachers on their views is to leave the author of CinC in the unenviable position of defending a much weaker position. It is much easier to defend the importance of the resurrection to the Christian hope than the death on the cross itself.
The Mormons belief that they will get to be Gods is not the same as the WoF statements about being partakers of the divine nature. The WoF view is closer to the historic Eastern Orthodox view. Man becomes a recipient of the communicable attributes of God. Man can never have the incommunicable attributes (Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence). The author of CinC never demonstrates that the WoF teachers believe that they will receive the incommunicable attributes of God, just the communicable attributes.
This fallacy is to only include evidence that supports the hypothesis and ignore contrary evidence. Some good examples of this are on the person of Christ. For any readers of CinC who in unfamiliar with the actual writings of the WoF teachers (except as presented in CinC), the following quotes from Kenneth Hagin from his book The Name of Jesus may be very surprising.
As Son, He is heir of all things He is "the express image" of God. He is "the brightness", or as one translation reads, "the outshining", of the Father, He is God speaking to us. (p27)
He preexisted with the Father. He just took upon Himself a body. He always preexisted with the Father (28).
Why isn't this information included in CinC? Clearly, because it contradicts the central thesis of the book. Worse case the WoF teachers could be accused of making contradictory statements on the subject. That would be a problem for them. In fact, they are fairly consistent on the subject. The real problem here is that CinC only tells part of the story.
The author of CinC is an "expert" in memory techniques (his company Memory Dynamics has an ad in the back of CinC). He makes constant use of alliteration as a memory technique. Note that this is a way of memorizing facts, not a way of determining if something is true, or not. In this vein, we would like to present a tongue-in-cheek alliteration memory technique to help the reader remember the material in this paper:
Heresy Hunter
Annoying acronyms
Never can remember those acronyms
Know I will forget the acronym, why bother
These memory techniques are entertaining, and may actually help in remembering information, it just has nothing to do with determining truth.
This short paper, if fully footnoted, would consists of literally hundreds of footnotes. About one third of the CinC footnotes are irrelevant to the subject itself, and do not quote source material from the WoF. Additionally, footnotes are useful to the honest scholar who wants to check out the context of the statements quoted to see if the author is truly representing the person making the statements. But, this is not the best reason for using them. The best reason is that they make the book appear to be well researched. In the case of CinC, the quantity of footnotes themselves is often noted as "but the book has to be right, it has over 700 footnotes". Again, the large number of footnotes does not prove the truth of the claims.
These are listed on CinC pages 252-253. These are the main thrust of the CinC argument against the WoF teachings on divine healing. The problem with the argument is that rather than testify against healing, six of the men received divine healing. The author of CinC must be hoping that no one will read the Bible since they can easily see that God supernaturally healed 6 of the 7. The 7th, Elisha can be viewed as an exceptional case for a number of reasons beyond the scope of this paper. The point is that the author of CinC is left with 1 example where God did not supernaturally heal someone, and that person never asked to be healed.
The author of CinC is out of the range of
This inconsistency is particularly perplexing since the author of CinC constantly uses the same techniques. The author attacks the WoF teachers as using "a plethora of pleasantly packaged books and tapes" (CinC-11), but himself uses the self-same techniques. The merchandising of CRI materials and the constant begging for donations on the Bible Answer Man program, make the WoF teachers look like rank amateurs in comparison. The monthly pleas for donations with hand underlined notes from CRI are just the latest in sophisticated money making tactics.
There is another dirty trick. This one involves the Benny Hinn statements about the trinity, ie, there are nine of them. This is in reference to Hinns view that God like man has body, soul and spirit (trichotemy) and that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so the conclusion is that there are nine of them.
The problem with the inclusion of the quotes in the audio tape CinC series is that Hinn had already repented publicly of the statement. He had admitted to the error. The author of CinC chose to include it in the tapes stating that although Hinn had repudiated his prior view, it was still illustrative of something. The question is illustrative of what? Illustrative of the fact that Hinn made a mistake and admitted to it? After Hinn publicly confessed the error, there was no reason for it to have been put onto the tapes (unless they had already been prepared and the publisher did not want to be bothered to remove the statements). Maybe there is some real reason yet to be heard.
Incidentally the point about the nature of man being dipartite or tripartite is another interesting theological point. Many scholars hold that man has two parts, a material and a non-material part. J. Oliver Buswell in his Systematic Theology gives a good defense of the dipartite view. On the other hand, the WoF teachers hold that man has three parts, body, soul, and spirit. This is a very common view outside of the WoF movement particularly in other parts of the Charismatic movement. This is another area of contention that good men on both sides disagree about. We should listen patiently to the opinions of others on these subjects, but reject anyone that labels those who hold different views as heretics.
Contrary to the statements of CinC, Kenneth Hagin has never denied a connection to E. W. Kenyon. As Hagin clearly stated in the book In The Name of Jesus 1980 edition, in the preface to the book, Kenneth Hagin states:
Mr. Kenyon went home to be with the Lord in 1948. It was 1950 before I was introduced to his books. A brother in the Lord asked me, "Did you ever read Dr. Kenyon?" I said, "I've never heard of him". He said, "You preach healing and faith just like he does". He gave me some of Kenyons books. And he preached faith and healing just like I do...
This is no secret connection, but is an after the fact discovery by Hagin that someone before him taught the same things that he did. Incidentally Kenyons books are sold at WoF conventions and are available from Kenneth Hagin mail order books.
On page CinC-263, the author of CinC adds a word to a quote from Fred Price that totally contradicts the meaning of Fred Price. The quote is about Pauls infirmity of the flesh (covered elsewhere in this paper):
The apostle Paul is also said to be responsible for his own sickness. In Paul's case, the sin is said to be a propensity for boasting. Says Fred Price: "Paul was saying in essence, that he interpreted this situation [sickness] to be a part of the plan of Satan, to keep him humble... If you read his writings, you will know that there was a peculiarity about the apostle Paul..."
The addition of the word sickness by the author of CinC (put into brackets by the author of CinC) causes the meaning to be totally different than that intended by Fred Price. The WoF teachers believe that the passage does not refer to sickness at all, but to something else (pride, etc). For the author of CinC to have added the word sickness is to totally contradict the meaning of the quote.
A good example of this is using the Shirley MacLaine, Bagwan Rashneesh, and Jim Jones "I am god, you are god", sound quotes as if they are WoF believers. This is totally intellectually dishonest as the WoF people have nothing in common with them. The author of CinC owes the WoF teachers an apology for using this material in an attempt to create an association between the WoF teachers and those people mentioned. People are left with the conclusion that WoF is the same as these people listed. Another example of this is the use of the phrase "magic mantra" (CinC-213). This is a New Age phrase, not a WoF phrase. Use of the phrase is clearly prejudicial and just plain wrong. The tape set can be purchased from Amazon.Com.
This is a major error in CinC that occurs over and over again. This fallacy involves the removal of a quote from the context that it is in and presenting it. The author of CinC is known for his quote "A text without a context, is a pretext". He would do well to listen to his own adage since he himself repeats the error many times.
A simple example is the now famous CinC tape where John Avanzini is heard proclaiming
Jesus had a house, a really big house.
If the entire quote is heard in context, it is an exposition of the passage in John 1:37-39.
And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day; for it was about the tenth hour.
It can be seen from this text that Jesus was not a homeless street person as he is often understood to be from the passage about "foxes have their holes, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head", etc. That is the point the Avanzini is making that is taken out of context by the CinC tape. It is a good point and worth making. It certainly does go against popular common dogma, but is true to the text itself.
One of the problems with checking out these quotes is that there is a great amount of source material to look through which has very poor availability since it is banned in the vast majority of Christian bookstores.
Comparison of CinC and the book about the WoF movement by DR McConnell, A Different Gospel shows that large portions of CinC are copied from A Different Gospel. Examining the section on E. W. Kenyon (CinC-32, CinC-331 through CinC-332) is a place that this can be easily seen. Certainly the words are changed to not be exactly the same, but the basic connection was drawn by McConnell several years before CinC was written. It is also clear that A Different Gospel was used as source material by CinC.
It is especially ironic that the author of CinC would make the charge of Plagiarism against Kenneth Hagin in borrowing from Kenyon since Kenyons books are still being published mainly due to their recommendations by Hagin himself.
The author of CinC borrows heavily from DR McConnell who himself borrows heavily from the book by Dave Hunt The Seduction of Christianity (ADG-24) to attempt to place the WoF outside of Pentecostal theology and into the metaphysical cults.
Reading the review of A Different Gospel, in the Christian Research Journal, dated Winter/Spring 1989, page 29, one can find the following interesting statement:
In his analysis of these concerns, however, McConnell falls short. He does so by trying to prove that the "faith" movement is, in some sense, metaphysical thought masquerading in evangelical garb.
Because of certain similarities between metaphysical teachings and the "faith" message, McConnell argues that they share the same doctrines. In doing so he ignores critical differences between the two, and fails to address much of what is distinctively "faith" teaching.
The author of CinC continues in the same vein, repeating the McConnell arguments, and in the process making the same critical mistakes. The basic error is to connect Hagin to Kenyon and Kenyon to metaphysical sources before him. The connection between Hagin and the metaphysical cults is missing. The author of CinC would have done well to read the past issues of the CRI Journal before releasing his book. He could have avoided the same error.
This is the most glaring omission of CinC. The author claims that to call it a crisis is no Exaggerations (CinC-13) and yet he gives absolutely no statistical information to back up this grandiose claim. At least the proponent of the other crisis' (AIDs, mad cow disease, population, health care, child care, ebolla virus, etc crisis') give some statistical data to back up their claim. There isn't even a quantitative analysis of how many people are in the WoF movement. This is more a problem with our society today. Everyone thinks that his pet peeve is a crisis and everyone else should give complete attention to it.
Although the author portrays himself as a neutral observer, he actually has his own doctrinal bias that comes out in the book. The author has listed his church affiliation recently alternately as (Newport Mesa, CA) Assembly of God, and Calvary Chapel (Costa Mesa, CA). He has listed his education as Calvin College. He has claimed his own doctrinal bias to be Charismatic.
The author of CinC betrays his Calvinistic inclinations in a number of places. This risks turning the book CinC into a Calvinistic argument against an Arminian movement. A good example of this is the following statement:
Far from having the option to tell God to "buzz off". Abraham could only bow before the grace and goodness of his Creator (CinC-212).
This statement is true for the hyper-Calvinist who holds to the teaching of Irresistible Grace (the "I" in the TULIP of Calvinism). To make the argument that the author of CinC makes is to clearly deny the free will of man. In the Calvinistic system, man can not refuse the grace of God, it is irresistible. Although Calvinism is a historically orthodox view, it is just one view on the orthodox continuum. Most of the church over the centuries has rejected the idea of irresistible grace and has believed that man has a free will to accept or to reject Gods plan in their lives. Certainly the author of CinC has a right to his own opinion on the subject, but to portray his view as normative for all of Christianity is the ultimate in arrogance (or perhaps just ignorance).
Additionally, the Dispensational bias of the author can be seen in that the covenant is portrayed as being unconditional (not based on acceptance by Abraham, but only on God). This is classic Dispensational theology. Again the author has the right to hold his own particular view, just not to attack others as heretics who do not share his view.
Although the author of CinC has made various claims to be be a Charismatic himself, this claim does not stand up on close analysis. He stands outside of the mainstream of Charismatic interpretation of Scripture and more in the Reformed tradition of scripture interpretation. Perhaps he does not yet realize it?
The author of CinC is out of the range of Charismatic movement when he proclaims that Matt 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4 refers soley to the early ministry of Jesus (CinC-251), and has no continuing action today. Surely if the author of CinC was a charismatic as he claimed, he would believe that the gift of healing continues through the present time. Instead he interprets Isaiah 53 as being limited to those that were healed by Jesus himself. Fortunately the apostles were used by God to heal people after the resurrection. This is proof that the gifts did not end with the end of the early ministry of Jesus, but continued through the Comforter after his ascension into heaven.
This points out another problem in CinC. Although the author of CinC tries to deny the translation of the Hebrew raphah in Isaiah as referring to physical healing (CinC-250), the use of Matt 8:17 proves that the verse should be understood to refer to physical healing. Matthew read in context shows that it was understood in a physical literal sense, and not in a spiritual, or figurative sense. It does not refer to healing from sin only, but to physical healing also. That is the sense in which Matt 8:17 translates the phrase. This is why the faith teachers believe that healing is in the atonement, because it is shown to be so by Matt 8:17.
The nay sayer will respond, "How can Jesus then heal before his death (and the atonement)", the answer to this is the same as "How could Jesus forgive sins". The Son of Man has power to forgive sins (and heal). This was and is the will of God. The author of CinC needs to come up with some better story to try and explain away Matt 8:17. His story is just too weak to believe.
The book CinC lists an example from the Bible where the person is struck with a physical impairment due to his unbelief. This is on CinC-259. It is the account of the father of John the Baptist who was made temporarily unable to speak since he did not believe that word that the angel brought of the son that was to be born to his wife. This story is a good example that itself contradicts a premise of CinC. The premise of CinC is that physical illness is sent by God and is unrelated to faith. In this passage (Luke 1:19), the angel said that Zacharias would not be able to speak until after the birth due to his unbelief. The author of CinC makes no note of the incidence as being a direct consequence of unbelief.
Although the author of CinC acknowledges that the verse in 2 Cor 12:7 does not explicitly identify Pauls "Thorn in the Flesh", this is contradicted by his many other statements on the subject. Also, the verse is listed as a proof text in the section of the book "Sin and Sickness" (CinC-261-269) as a proof that Paul was sick.
Another verse on the subject used by the author of CinC is Galatians 4:13 which he interprets as referring to Pauls preaching due to a "bodily illness" (CinC-252). This is another area of interpretation where the author of CinC is at variance with the Fathers of the Reformation. Actually, this is based on a questionable translation of the phrase which is better rendered as "infirmity of the flesh" in the KJV. The translation "bodily illness" is an opinion that is not shared by either the NASB or the KJV translations. The note in the front of CinC lists the version as NIV (unless otherwise noted). Since this reference has no other version listed, the NIV is implied. The trouble here is that the NIV translates the phrase simply as illness (not bodily).
The author of CinC interprets the verse as proof that Paul was sick (CinC-252). Reading the Commentary on Galatians by Martin Luther shows another view. Luther specifically rejected the interpretation of the "thorn in the flesh" as referring to physical illness (as some taught even in his day). Luther believed that the passage referred to the persecution that came with the preaching of the Word.
Calvin also rejected the interpretation of "the thorn in the flesh" as a physical illness, but rather interpreted it as the outward appearance of Paul being of a lowly stature. This can be seen in Calvins Commentary on Galatians.
The "thorn in the flesh" has been a subject of some controversy of interpretation over the centuries. Again here the author of CinC has a right to his own esoteric interpretation of Scripture, and there are certainly others who share in his interpretation of the verse. What the author of CinC does not have the right to do is to place his views as normative for the rest of the Christian church. Otherwise he will have to reject the very Fathers of the Reformation themselves. To quote the author of CinC changing a few words, "People often fall for the author of CinCs misinterpretations because they fail to test what he says in the light of Scripture.
Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology "Descent into Hell" section, notes that
Christ's descent into Hades after his crucifixion and death has a solid foundation in both Scripture and the early church
Christ's descent into Hades was almost universally affirmed by the church fathers, including Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Origen, Hermas, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine.
In a sermon at Torgau in April 1533, Luther spoke of the descent of the whole Christ into hell, where he demolished hell and bound the devil.
This entire area is a subject of historical controversy. To paint those that hold a different view as heretical is to risk writing off the entire early church and a father of the reformation as heretics. It might be safer to be found standing with a Martin Luther than with others (such as the author of CinC).
The WoF movement has elements of both Dispensational and Covenant theology.
When it comes to eschatology, the WoF movement is Dispensational. When it comes to the Abrahamic Covenant itself, the WoF movement is more Covenantal than Dispensational.
Although this apparent theological schizophrenia may be frustrating to those outside the movement, that is the way it is. The author of CinC himself borrows from the Covenant/Reformed tradition when it comes to arguing for the sovereignty of God and borrows from the Dispensational framework when arguing against the WoF view of the Abrahamic covenant (CinC-213).
Both sides have their own historical adherents. In Dispensational theology, the covenant with Abraham is unconditional. It is only based on God. In WoF and Covenant theology, the Abrahamic covenant is seen as conditional on both the acceptance of Abraham and his obedience. The Dispensationalist see two methods of salvation, one in the Old Testament, and a different one in the New Testament. The Covenant theologian sees one way of salvation (one single covenant) in both periods, based on obedience to the gospel and faith in God.
Again, here the author of CinC has a right to stand for his view (whatever it may be at the moment) which is that of the covenant based only on the sovereignty of God. However, to condemn the WoF teachers on this point is to condemn the historical covenant theologians. It is ironic that the author of CinC is clearly willing to take any side of a historical argument just to make an argument against the WoF teachers.
The message of CinC has been accepted by some and rejected by others. One of the primary critics of the book is James Spencer, who in his book, Heresy Hunters - Character Assassination in the Church does an excellent job of repudiating the ad homenim nature of the attacks in CinC. Although it is logically difficult to attack someone for attacking someone else, it can be defended within boundaries. If the point is that the author of CinC should not be assassinating through ad homenim attacks, then the point is well taken. For a positive review of Spencers book, see the Boostore Journal Dec 1993.
Another review of CinC is in the Christianity Today, Nov 22, 1993, article by author Bruce Barron. Although Barron agrees with some of the points of CinC, he nevertheless has certain criticisms against CinC. Some of the more interesting quotes are:
The title may seem melodramatic: the charismatic teachers this book scrutinizes have not created a full-blown "crisis" within Christianity.
...Hanegraaff's theological analysis largely recapitulates previous critiques of the movement...
... Hanegraaff's case is not airtight...
Hanegraaff fails to deal with the exegesis of certain passages of Scripture that are foundational to Faith theology
..., while arguing that biblical texts must be studied in context, Hanegraaff does not always approach the Faith teachers' writings with the same care. He quotes particular heretical-sounding passages without discussing neighboring material that may clarify the teacher's meaning in a more orthodox fashion.
Further, he ignores the many moderating statements that the Faith teachers, and especially the Hagins, have published; his lack of reference to signs of balance or moderation among some faith teachers causes Hanegraaff to overstate his case and weakens the credibility of the guilty verdict he pronounces against them.
John Ankerberg, The Facts on the Faith Movement, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House,
1993)
Bruce Barron, The Health and Wealth Gospel, (Downers Grove,
Illinois: IVP, 1987)
Bruce Barron, Christianity Today, Nov 22, 1993
Wade H. Boggs, Jr, Faith Healing and the Christian Faith, (Richmond, Va.: John Knox
Press, 1956) F. F. Bosworth, Christ the Healer, 8th Edition, (Dallas, Texas: R. V.
Bosworth, 1924)
Florence Bulle, God wants you rich, and other enticing doctrines, (Bethany House,
1983)
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
House, 1984)
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House,
1996)
Walter A Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
Charles Farah, From the Pinacle of the Temple, (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos,
?)
Kenneth Hagin, The Art of Intercession, (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth Hagin Ministries,
1984)
Kenneth Hagin, The Believers Authority, (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth Hagin Ministries,
1984)
Kenneth Hagin, How you can be led by the Spirit of God, (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth
Hagin Ministries, 1984)
Kenneth Hagin, I Believe in Visions, (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth Hagin Ministries,
1989)
Kenneth Hagin, The Name of Jesus, (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 1983)
Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1993)
Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis Study Guide, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest
House, 1994)
Michael Horton, Power Religion, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1992)
Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People, (New York: Schoken Books,
1981)
John MacArthur, The Charismatics, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996)
D. R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson , 1988)
T. J. McCrossan, Bodily Healing and the Atonement, (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Kenneth Hagin
Ministries, 1930 (1982 reprinted) )
Bob and Gretchen Passantino, Witch Hunt, (Nashville,
Tennessee: Nelson, 1990)
James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1980)
James Spencer, Heresy Hunters, (Layfayette, Lousiana:
Huntington House, 1993)
George Stormont, Smith Wigglesworth, A Man who Walked with God, (Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Harrison House, 1989) B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, (London, England:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1972)
Smith Wigglesworth, Ever Increasing Faith, (Springfield Publishing House: Gospel
Publishing House, 1924)
Lilian B. Yoemans, M. D., Healing From Heaven, (Springfield, Mo.: Radiant Books,
1926, 1954, 1973)
Back to Home
Go to the Links page