Jan, 31

2017

The Planned Parenthood Prenatal Ruse

I want to mention something about Planned Parenthood. It seems that Planned Parenthood is putting extra emphasis on its non-abortion services. The reason they are doing that is to justify the $500,000,000 that Planned Parenthood receives each year from you and I. In other words, from tax-payer funding. Prenatal care, however, seems to be virtually non-existent according to Live Action in a video entitled “The Prenatal Care Deception.”

Here is what Planned Parenthood people themselves say. “Planned Parenthood offers abortions not prenatal care.” This was a receptionist at Planned Parenthood in Tempe, Arizona. Another Planned Parenthood person in Albany, New York agreed, saying, “No, Planned Parenthood does prenatal care hon.” Another in Merrillville, Indiana said, “No, we don’t do prenatal services. I mean it’s called Planned Parenthood, and I know it’s kind of deceiving.”

Well, the abortion business does almost 1/3 of all abortions in the U.S. 870 per day, some 320,000 a year. Perhaps there are millions more that are not accounted for.

“Planned Parenthood says it’s a champion of women’s health care; yet, prenatal care, which is an essential service for expectant mothers, is virtually non-existent,” says Lila Rose, who is president and founder of Live Action. “Our investigators who wanted to keep their babies were turned away,” she says, “by 92 out of 97 Planned Parenthood centers. It’s clear that despite its claims, abortion is the priority and the only option for pregnant women that visit Planned Parenthood.” There is a big ruse going on according to this organization, which is doing some pretty good primary research. Live Action is exposing the underbelly of Planned Parenthood.

You know there are so many arguments I hear today. For example, I hear from the pro-abortion lobby this inequality argument. Simply put, the inequality argument posits that a woman forced to carry her baby to full term could not compete successfully with a male counterpart in the workplace; therefore, she should be provided the latitude to abort. Think about carrying this to its logical conclusion. The inequality argument would apply to abandonment as well. Imagine the absurdity of arguing that in order for a woman to compete on an equal basis with a man she should be afforded the opportunity not only to abort a preborn child but to abandon a preschooler.

The arguments are pretty lame and Planned Parenthood is trying to keep its money. It is fighting hard for the $500,000,000 we give them and I hope they lose that fight.

—Hank Hanegraaff

January 31st, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Abortion, Hank Hanegraaff, Live Action, Planned Parenthood No comments yet

Jan, 26

2017

Apologetics

Not Pomp and Power but Dependence Upon the Lord

I took off some time to watch the inauguration of Donald John Trump. The peaceful transition of power. It was quite a sight to behold. I could not help but think as I was watching the inauguration and all of the festivities of what happened March 4, 1865. This was the second inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln. Those words forever etched in the annals of history. “With high hope for the future,” but “no prediction in regard to it” that is the future said Abraham Lincoln, “is ventured.”

Lincoln went on to say,

The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

I was thinking that Abraham Lincoln died precisely forty-one days after he penned those words and then spoke them at the inauguration. My mind flashed back to the prophet Isaiah:

All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever….

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?….

Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust….

Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing….

He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff

(Isaiah 40:6-8, 12, 15, 17, 23-24 NIV).

Interestingly enough, when you think about the proclamation that Lincoln made for a national day of fasting and prayer. I loved what he said:

We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

I bring all that up because when we see the pomp and the power sometimes we think we can rely on the arm of flesh, but ultimately, we are totally and completely reliant on the arm of the Lord.

—Hank Hanegraaff

Blog adapted from the January 21, 2017 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

January 26th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Christian Living, Hank Hanegraaff No comments yet

Jan, 24

2017

Apologetics

The Fast Food Christianity of Paula White

I was looking at the list of people who would be praying at the presidential inauguration, and one of them was Paula White (Paula White-Cain) the notorious Word of Faith preacher.

White famously said, “when God begins to speak to you, you get up and go to the phone, because God is telling you $68.19 for the next 12 months, which happens to be $818. What Deuteronomy 8:18 says that God will give you power to get wealth”¹Well, this is “faith food”² or fast food for millions of gullible people around the world.

She claims to have had a divine visitation in which

God gave her a vision of multitudes of millions of people as far as her eyes could see. In the vision, every time she opened her mouth and began to declare the Word of the Lord, there was a visible manifestation of the power of God – souls were saved, the sick were healed, and the broken were restored. Conversely, when she was silent, people began to fall into utter darkness.³

The message that she had to loudly proclaim was that “God does not want us to live in poverty or lack” for “He wants you to be prosperous.” Indeed, says Paula, “God wants you to have it all.”⁴

To have it all requires the sowing of seeds, so says Paula, “For the next 12 months I am sowing $68.19, based on Psalm 68:19, that daily God will load me up with benefits.”⁵ The magic in the numbers is breathtaking. Paula goes on to say, “$68.19 for the next 12 months, which happens to be $818.” Then she uses the pretext of Deuteronomy 8:18 to make her point “God will give you power to get wealth.”⁶ But, what is more astounding about this is how many gullible people find merit in White’s message.

On one occasion White said, “Today, I was in prayer and fasting and seeking God, when God said to her saying, challenge the people to give $66.12 according to Psalm 66:12.” Then she promised her devotes, “the Word cannot return void. When you put your faith with the Word, then you have mandated results.”⁷

Like other faith teachers, her formula for success involves speaking right words, and thinking right thoughts. Speaking of the power of words she says, “Oh come on Paula…are you actually saying that just because my mouth says something that makes it true?” Well, she answers her own question by saying, “I’m here to tell you, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying: Your words create your world” (Italics in original).⁸ Her justification is that “If God can create something out of nothing, and if we are created in His image, then if we can image it, or imagine it, then, so it can be for us.”⁹

She garners support not only through claims of revelations and visitations and prophecies—including by the way the prophecy that a child would be saved by a thirteen-foot angel¹⁰—but though specific claims of prophetic healing. Her healing claims rival those of Jesus Christ Himself. White purports to have seen everything from the blind receiving sight to resurrections from the dead.¹¹

Tragically, the Devil’s in the details. To date she has not provided even basics to buttress her boasts, but her fame continues to spread from her church in Florida that she decimated to what she started now in New York and now she was featured in the inauguration.

—Hank Hanegraaff

For further Study:

Turning Truth into Mythology (Hank Hanegraaff)

Osteenification and What it Portends (Hank Hanegraaff)

Christianity in Crisis 21^st Century: Wealth and Want (Hank Hanegraaff)

Christianity Still In Crisis: A Word of Faith Update (Bon Hunter)

What’s wrong with the Faith Movement (Part 1): E. W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of another Gospel (Hank Hanegraaff)

What’s wrong with the Faith Movement (Part 2): The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland (Hank Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro)

Notes:

Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord Praise-A-Thon 2003, November 14, 2003
Paula White Ministries, “Paula’s Life Story.”
Ibid.
Paula White Ministries, “Follow God’s Principles ‘To Have it All’”
Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord Praise-A-Thon, November 4, 2003.
Ibid.
Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord Praise-A-Thon, April 6, 2005
Paul White Ministries, “Understanding the Power of Words Over Your Money.”
Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord, February 6, 2004
Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord, June 10, 2003.
White says, “I’ve seen blinded eyes open and I’ve laid hands on women where they’ve removed the womb and fallopian tube only to go back see them holding twins and I’ve watch as they pronounced people dead only to see them praising God in our church after laying hands and calling forth life back into them and I preached the Gospel on every continent and seen over a million people come to the lord Jesus Christ” (Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord, June 10, 2003).

Blog adapted from the January 16, 2017 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

January 24th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Hank Hanegraaff, Paula White, Word of Faith No comments yet

Jan, 19

2017

Apologetics

Book of Mormon Fails

The Book of Mormon is the record of two great civilizations—at least allegedly. First the Jaredites, who left the Tower of Babel and migrated to the Americas twenty-two hundred years before Christ. The second migrated from Jerusalem around six-hundred BC, and divided into two great nations—the Nephites and the Lamanites.

The Lamanites, according to the Book of Mormon, were “white and exceedingly fair and delightsome;” however, due to sin, “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21). The lone Nephite survivor in the final battle with their Lamanite enemies was a mighty military commander named Moroni. (You, of course, see him on steeples of Mormon temples.)

Along with his father Mormon, Moroni inscribed the most correct of any book on earth in Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics and buried it in the hill of Cumorah. After bring resurrected as an angel, Moroni appeared to the prophet Joseph Smith, and instructed him relative to its destined translation into the English language. Smith, in due course, found the book inscribed upon golden plates along with a pair of magical eye glasses that he used to translate the Egyptian into English. The result was a new revelation called the Book of Mormon.

There is a problem. No archaeological evidence for a language such as Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics. No archaeological evidence for the great civilizations chronicled in the Book of Mormon. No archaeological evidence for lands such as the land of Moron that is described in Ether 7. No anthropological evidence that the Nephites and the Lamanites migrated from Jerusalem to Mesoamerica. Indeed, both archaeology and anthropology militate against the people, places and particulars that are part and parcel of the Book of Mormon and demonstrate conclusively that the book is little more than the product of a fertile and you might say enterprising imagination.

Here is the deal. Like the Book of Mormon, the Bible has been roundly denounced, as a cleverly invented story. But, there is a difference. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible is buttressed by history and evidence. While the archaeologist spade continues to mount up evidence against the Book of Mormon, it has piled up proof upon proof for the people, places, and particulars that are inscribed in the parchment and papyrus of biblical manuscripts. I’ve written about that evidence in my book Has God Spoken?

—Hank Hanegraaff

For further related study, please access the following:

Is the Book of Mormon Credible? (Hank Hanegraaff)

DNA Science Challenges LDS History (Bill McKeever)

LDS Apologetics and the Battle for Mormon History (Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson)

Book of Mormon Word Change (Bill McKeever)

Problems with the Gold Plates of the Book of Mormon (Bill McKeever)

LDS Church Acknowledges Anniversary’s Ban on Priesthood for Blacks (Eric Johnson)

Historical Artifacts and Biblical Sources: Determining what is True (Jerry Pattengale)

Biblical History: The Faulty Criticism of Biblical Historicity (Paul Maier)

Biblical Archaeology: Ally or Adversary (Paul Maier)

Blog adapted from the January 12, 2017 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

January 19th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Archaeology, Book of Mormon, Hank Hanegraaff, Mormonism 2 comments

Jan, 17

2017

Apologetics

Understanding Adam’s Fall

If Mary and Moses were in the Garden of Eden would they have listen to the serpent and eaten the forbidden fruit?

We do not know what would have happened. What we do know is that God created Adam and Eve in such a way that they could feely choose to obey or they could freely choose to rebel. God created Adam and Eve that way because if Adam and Eve were created like puppets then love would not mean anything. The only way that you can know that love is meaningful is if you really have a choice. Adam and Eve truly were able to reject a relationship with the Lord or to love and follow and serve Him. Adam and Eve decided that they wanted to do it their own way and as a result they fell into lives of constant sin terminated by death (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12-14).

Now we cannot know what would have happened if someone else is in the Garden in their place. We know this that our identity is bound up in the identity of Adam and Eve. We have all fallen into sin because of Adam’s sin. He is our representative but the beautiful thing is that if we receive the second Adam, and in Scripture the second Adam is Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ will come into our hearts and restore the relationship that was broken by Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:15-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-22, 45).

We know that Moses and Mary are descendants of the first man and the first woman. As a result of that, they bear Adam’s sin. We know that they are fallen and that they needed a savior. Mary needed a savior for she was a sinner and Moses was a sinner and needed a savior.

Now Moses was only able to look forward to Jesus because Jesus had not come yet. He looked forward to Jesus through types and shadows, through civil and ceremonial laws that pointed forward to Jesus Christ. When Jesus came, however, He fulfilled those types and shadows that pointed forward to Him, and those types and shadows were not necessary anymore (Gal. 3:15-29; Heb. 4:14-10:18).

But your question is a good question. We just do not know because we would be speculating. What we do know is that Moses was born in sin and so was Mary.

—Hank Hanegraaff

For further related study, please see the following:

Original Sin: It’s Importance & Fairness (Clay Jones)

What is Sin? (Hank Hanegraaff)

What Must I Do to be Saved? (Hank Hanegraaff)

How were People who lived Before the Time of Christ Saved? (Hank Hanegraaff)

Blog adapted from “Would it have been different if Mary or Moses was in the Garden of Eden?”

January 17th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Hank Hanegraaff, Original Sin, Salvation 1 comment

Jan, 12

2017

Apologetics

A Look Back at the Legacy of the English Bible

Sacred Scriptures come from the fullness of the Spirit; so that there is nothing in the Prophets or the Law, or the Gospel, or the Epistles, which descends not from divine majesty—Origen

We have the privilege of not only having the Bible in print but now the Bible in an audio format as well.

Think back for a moment to the legacy of the English Bible which had its genesis in the writings of an Oxford theologian named John Wycliffe. He is fondly remembered as being the Morning Star of the Reformation. His translations were the only English Bible until the invention of movable type all the way back to the sixteenth-century. His work profoundly influenced the legacy of what we now possess in terms of an English Bible. He held that the Bible was the exemplar of Christianity and the authority for faith and practice.

As a result of translating the Bible into the English language, Tyndale was roundly condemned as a heretic because back then it was thought that putting Scripture into the hands of the laity was an outrage against the authority of the church. Forty-four years after Wycliffe died—he died back in 1384—Pope Martin V had his bones unearthed, incinerated, and then had the ashes unceremoniously thrown to the wind. But, the legacy of Wycliffe’s English Bible spread, and no single person after Wycliffe made a greater contribution to the legacy of the English Bible than an Oxford-Cambridge scholar. You probably remember his name: William Tyndale.

Tyndale defied the papacy and its traditions very much in the manner of Wycliffe. He wanted to make the Bible available to the commoner so that a boy who drives the plow—this was his sentiment—would be as familiar with the Scriptures as was the pope. Tyndale’s work became the basis for many translations culminating with the King James Version. Tyndale was tried for translating Bible into the English language. I mean that was thought to be an incredible outrage. He was martyred as a result on October 6, 1536. I will always remember that his body ablaze he cries out, “Lord, open the eyes of England’s king.” This is memorable because the prayer finds an answer in King Henry VIII.

Henry VIII authorized an English translation of the greatest volume to be chained to every church pulpit in the land. It is called the Authorized English translation or the Great Bible due to its volume and size.

The Bible was now available to the masses but the problem that many found is that the Bible by the masses was quickly turned into a wax nose because they did not know how to read the Bible in the sense in which it was intended. One of the core values of the Christian Research Institute is not only to get you into the Word of God and get the Word of God into you but to get you conversant with the art and science of biblical interpretation. We have resources available for that. I teach that very discipline in the second half of my book Has God Spoken?

—Hank Hanegraaff

This blog adapted from the January 6, 2017 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

January 12th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Bible, Bible Versions, Hank Hanegraaff, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale No comments yet

Jan, 10

2017

Apologetics

Answering Tough Questions on Divorce and Remarriage

When is divorce permissible?

There are legitimate circumstances in which a person can get a divorce and can move on because the other party has violated the marriage covenant, namely on account of unfaithfulness and desertion (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:31-32; 19:7-9; Mark 10:2-9; Luke 16:19; 1 Cor. 7:10-16). There are other sins against the marriage that can rise to the same level of covenant unfaithfulness as adultery and desertion, including physical abuse, refusal to work and support the family, and illegal activities that threaten the safety of the family.

Paul and Jesus always make clear one point: Divorce is always because of the hardness of our hearts. Men particularly in the culture in which Paul was writing would put a way a woman for any or every reason, and Paul and Jesus are putting a stop to that. They are putting a stop to men treating women as thought they were a possession, and saying, “You cannot try to look for loopholes by which you can do away with one woman and marry another.” That is the basic premise and we should follow that edict today. That is the spirit of the law.

In any situation, we cannot say, “Ok you made a mistake, you are unfaithful, you are out!” No, that is being hardhearted. Even in that circumstance the greater good is always reconciliation. Forgiveness. The point here is not to look for a loophole, the point is to try to preserve marriage, if at all possible. In 1 Corinthians 7, therefore, Paul also says that if the unbeliever is willing to stay do not get a divorce (v. 13). The reconciliation that comes through faith in Christ ultimately becomes benchmark for all of our relationships.

My husband wants a divorce even though there are no biblical grounds. How do I convince another Christian to reconcile? The “olive branch” has been extended many times. What should I do?

Keep praying. Ultimately it is God that changes the heart. But I think that all too often we as Christians fall for cultural ideas. That idea would be God has given me marriage to make me happy. Perhaps God has not given the marriage to make one happy, but rather to make one holy. This is a radical concept of marriage, but I think that is God’s call, it is to holiness in marriage and that trumps the pursuit of mere happiness.

What has happened is we think that love is a feeling. When we do not have the feeling the whole thing is just too much effort. The truth of the matter is this: love is not a feeling, love is a commitment. Feelings ebb and flow. The commitment should never change.

You cannot change anybody’s heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

Perhaps right now it seems the person has closed his own heart but God can do what seems to us impossible. God ultimately is the one that moves hearts. The proverb that says, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov. 21:1). If that is true of the king, it is true of every one of us.

You ultimately got to rest in this: If your spouse is genuinely a believer then he will come to his senses, recognizing that to be a believer, you first have to say, “I’m a sinner.” Secondly, you have to say, “I’m willing to repent of my sin,” which is to say, “I want to turn and follow God and do it His way.” When you do that, you’ve received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, you are no longer Lord of your life; Christ is the Lord of your life, and you want to follow Him in obedience. And even if we cannot find an ounce of satisfaction in a marriage, it is not about selfishness, it is about selflessness that we are called to as Christians.

I got divorced as an unbeliever. The divorce was without biblical grounds. Now I am a believer. What obligation do I have to my ex-wife with respect to reconciling the marriage?

I think that as long as the door to reconciliation remains open I would pursue reconciliation. I would do it in a way that is glorifying to God, because as a new believer, you are a new creation in Christ. In fact, as a new believer, when you are baptized, you are symbolizing that you were buried to your old life, raised to newness of life through His resurrection power. That needs to be manifest to your ex-wife, that there has been a change in you, a change that is not just articulated by the words you speak, but a change that is demonstrated by both your life and your love. I would pursue reconciliation. Obviously, you cannot force it. You cannot force anyone else to reconcile. Reconciliation at the end of the day is always going to be a two-way street. It takes someone that is willing to forgive and someone that is wanting to be forgiven, if those two aspects aren’t there, reconciliation doesn’t take place. But I think that as long as the door to reconciliation remains open I would pursue that. Once that door is closed, if it is closed through death or remarriage, then you cannot unscramble the egg. Right now, in this instance, there is still a possibility, and I think as a Christian you want to pursue that possibility.

—Hank Hanegraaff

For further study, please see the following:

Biblical Grounds for Divorce and Remarriage by Michael F. Ross

The Divorced Pastor: Is He the Husband of One Wife? by Michael F. Ross

Blog adapted from “When is divorce permissible?” “My husband wants a divorce even though there’s no grounds; what should I do?” and “I got divorced as an unbeliever. Now I’m saved, what obligation do I have to my ex-wife?”

January 10th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Divorce, Hank Hanegraaff, Marriage, Remarriage No comments yet

Jan, 05

2017

Apologetics

Making Sense of the Binding and Releasing of Satan in Revelation 20

You mentioned that the thousand-years referred to in Revelation 20 is synonymous with forever or eternity. If that is they case, why does it say Satan will be released after the thousand years? How is that so?

The question really gets into trying to make a metaphor walk on all fours, particularly a metaphor that is in the context of apocalyptic literature. The metanarrative that you have in John’s Apocalypse is about Satan, who has been defeated by Christ. If you look throughout the Scriptures, you see how Christ comes, and He makes a spectacle out of the principalities and powers of darkness (Col. 2:12). He triumphs over them by the cross and that triumph is not a temporary triumph. It is an eternal triumph. It is a triumph that will forever demonstrate that Christ is victor and that Satan is defeated.

Now, within the context of the metaphor, within the context of the overall metanarrative as well, you have Satan released for a short time. After his eternal vanquishing, he is released for a short time. This is tantamount to saying that after Christ has made a spectacle of principalities and powers of darkness, with the domain of Satan being defeated, Satan has yet a short time, in this metanarrative a short time. This is part of the narrative communicated in apocalyptic language and you cannot try to make the metaphor walk on all fours.

The whole idea of thousand is used in many different ways metaphorically. It can be used to say that God owns all the cattle on a thousand hills (Psa. 50:10). In other words, this is a way of saying God owns everything. It can also be used to say that God’s loving kindness is to a thousand generations (Exod. 20:6), i.e. an everlasting lovingkindness. You cannot try to make the metaphor walk on all fours. If you do, you end up with loose strings popping out all over the place.

I mentioned this before, but it is sort of like someone saying, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” and you start asking “What size are the dogs?” and “What color are the cats?”

The grand metanarrative of John’s expanded Olivet Discourse, which is the Book of Revelation—No Olivet Discourse appears in the Gospel of John but the Synoptic Gospels record them (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21)—John’s Apocalypse gives you an expanded Olivet Discourse. Within this expanded Olivet Discourse, he says

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-2).*

This is a way of saying that Christ eternally defeats the powers of darkness through His triumph. This is a way of talking about Christ defeating Satan. Yet, in the narrative of the Apocalypse, the people of God are going to suffer under Satan, the Beast, and the woman who rides the Beast. John is telling the readers, Satan is going to be set free for a short time. He is going to continue to wreak havoc upon the earth. That is what is going on in the story.

The thousand years is indicative of everlasting and complete defeat. As the metaphor continues, God keeps His covenant to a thousand generations, indicative that His mercy is forever, so too Satan is forever defeated, but John is saying the worst of the tribulation still looms on the horizon; therefore, Satan must be set free for a short time, he must surround the camp of God’s people, the city He loves, before Christ coming in judgment

He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time and ultimate vindication.

Think about the language of Revelation 20—many years ago I took the time to memorize the passage and cogitate upon the passage for hours upon hours as I would walk and think about it—you have an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key to the abyss, and having in his hand a great chain, how does an angel, if you are pressing the language, hold in his hand a great chain? An angel is a non-corporeal being. Then he takes the Devil, and throws him into the abyss, then locks and seals it, how is that done? Did he really throw Satan into some kind of container and then put a lid on top of it? If you take apocalyptic language and you try to make it walk on all fours, you end up with unmitigated nonsense. You got to read the language in which it is intended.

The language itself is very, very interesting, because it is not just an apocalypse in the sense of an unfolding, but it is a linguistic matrix that has its roots in the rest of Scripture. What makes Revelation so easy to understand is the overall understanding of Scripture as a whole. In other words, if you understand the Scriptures as a whole, Revelation does not come out of left field. Think about it. Revelation is only four-hundred and four verses with two-hundred-seventy-eight being direct allusions to Old Testament passages. Those who are familiar with the Bible, right away see what is going on in the apocalyptic language because it has its roots in the linguistic matrix of the rest of Scripture.

—Hank Hanegraaff

Learn more about understanding end time passages in the Bible in Hank Hanegraaff’s books The Apocalypse Code and Has God Spoken.

This blog adapted from the May 11, 2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast.

*All Scripture cited from The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984).

January 5th, 2017 by Christian Research Institute | Type: Standard

Tags: Eschatology, Hank Hanegraaff, Millennium 1 comment

Jan, 03

2017

Apologetics

Church, Tongues and Prophecy

Is speaking in tongues Scriptural or Satanic?

I certainly do not think speaking in tongues is Satanic. I think that there are people who prostitute tongues. We have a great example with Rodney Howard-Browne and Kenneth Copeland, and when they prostitute the gift of speaking in tongues, I think it is a very serious thing because now you are attributing something to God, which has nothing whatsoever to do with God. That is the quintessential definition of blasphemy.

When Paul says, “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor. 14:39-40),* the apostle is pointing out that what we want to do is to edify, strengthen, and encourage the body of Christ. We do this by doing what we do in a way that is pleasing to the Lord, and not deflective to the body of Christ.

If someone is speaking in a tongue, in a language you do not understand, there has got to be an interpretation because you might be edified by what you say but those around you within the context of the church are not going to be edified. Tongues that are interpreted have the effect of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:26-33).

Unfortunately, there are so many examples in the church today of people who prostitute the gift and they make it something other than what it really is. As mentioned, Rodney Howard-Browne, a notorious Counterfeit Revivalist, and Kenneth Copeland, a leader of the Word of Faith movement, do that on a regular basis (i.e. prostitute the gift of speaking in tongues). When they were speaking together in dueling tongues in front of thousands and thousands of people, and the people thought they were very, funny doing this, what Howard-Browne and Copeland were actually doing was saying that this was the gift of the Holy Spirit being manifested through them but in reality it was nothing but sheer blasphemy (An audio clip of Howard-Browne and Copeland dueling in tongues can be heard on September 14, 2016 Bible Answer Man broadcast, which is introduced at the 25:28 mark.)

Is speaking in tongues at church ok?

One of the great texts to go to is 1 Corinthians 14. If you look at verse 22, Paul says there, “Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.” So Paul is saying that if you are prophesying—and not in the sense of telling the future but forth telling, equipping, encouraging, exhorting, the saints—you should be prophesying because that’s for believers, but tongues then is “not for believers but for unbelievers.”

Paul then says, “If the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind” (v. 23)? The apostle is giving a rational thereabout why believer should not speak loudly and many at the same time in tongues in the context of a church. And now if someone gives an interpretation within the context—what is tongues but a prophecy.

If there is a tongue, according to Paul, you cannot all be talking at the same time, and loudly, and be disruptive. If a tongue is given within this New Testament context there has to be an interpretation because then a tongue can serve to edify the body of Christ. But in general what is the principle? The principle is “tongues then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.” And then he gives a very strong warning about what happens when you speak in tongues in public and how that can be disruptive and discombobulating for an unbeliever and instead of reaching that unbeliever you end up repelling the unbeliever.

—Hank Hanegraaff

“For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says” (1 Cor. 14:13)

Learn more about speaking in tongues, spiritual gifts, and Holy Spirit in the following equip.org resources:

Is Speaking in Tongues the Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? (Hank Hanegraaff)

What Does It Mean to Say that The Holy Spirit is In You? (Hank Hanegraaff)

Is There a Difference Between Indwelling and Infilling? (Hank Hanegraaff)

Are There Apostles and Prophets Today? (Hank Hanegraaff)

The Counterfeit Revival (Part One): Rodney Howard-Browne and the “Toronto Blessing” (Hank Hanegraaff)

The Counterfeit Revival (Part Two): Visionary Hoaxes And Revisionary History (Hank Hanegraaff)

The Counterfeit Revival (Part Three): Separating Fact from Fabrication on the Pensacola Outpouring (Hank Hanegraaff)

The Counterfeit Revival (Part Four): Modern-Day Mesmerists (Hank Hanegraaff)

The Counterfeit Revival Revisited (Hank Hanegraaff)