Hion readily admits that much of themisunderstanding that has arisen from histeachings is the result of his lack of formalBible training. In fact, almost immediatelyafter his having been "born again," Hinnsays, "The Lord launched me into ministryaI . ht

,,3most overnlg .

In spite of these circumstances, Hinnfounded his present church, Orlando Chris-tian Center, in 1983. Beginning with just afew hundred members, that church nowboasts an average weekly attendance ofover 7,000. In addition, Hinn conductsworldwide crusades and has a dailytelevision program that airs over theTrinity Broadcasting Network, headed byJan and Paul Crouch.

Although Hinn states that his ministrythroughout the 1970s was shaped by thewritings of men like DL Moody and R.A.Torrey, he was a strong proponent of"revelation knowledge"-new truthsrevealed to him by God directly-thatwere not contained within Scripture. Onlyrecently has he stated that he will no longerclaim revelation knowledge as theauthority for his teachings.4

More than this, Hinn claims to actuallybe a channel for God-that God enters himand takes over his mind and tongue to thepoint where he is unaware of what he hassaid. After his sermon on December 31,1989, at Orlando Christian Center, duringwhich he gave several future prophecies,Hinn expressed that he was drunk-presumably on the Holy Spirit-and askedsomeone to tell him what he had just s.rid:

I wish somebody would make sure totell me what I said. Did you tape thatbrother? Did you lape that? Oh! I wastotally drunk; still drunk!'

It became evident in the early 1980s thatthe word-faith teachings of Kenyon,Hagin, Copeland and others began to havean enormous impact on Hinn. But shortlyafter his encounter with critics of his book,Hion announced that he no longer holds tothe word-faith teachings.

I really no longer believe the faithmessage. I don't think it adds Up.6

This admission appears to be a mixedblessing. While it's good news that Hinnhas recognized the error of the word-faithmessage (at least some of its elements), hisrationale is faulty. Whether or not theword-faith message adds up isn't the issue.This implies that it doesn't work. But evenif it did work it's not biblical. And that'sthe problem with all false teachings.

A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR MEDIA

SPECIAL REPORT

BENNY HINNPROS & CONS

bV Albert James Dager

Benny Hinn, pastor of Orlando Chris-tian Center in Orlando, Florida, isone of the most prolific voices in the

Christian media today. His book, GoodMorning, Holy Spirit, has remained on thebestseller list since its release in October,1990, having sold approximately one-quarter million copies within the first fewmonths. As of this writing (May, 1992), itis still number one among paperback booksaccording to ChristianRetailing, one of themajor trade publications for Christianbookstores, distributors and publishers.

Due to some rather startling statementsin the original edition of Good Morning,Holy Spirit, Hinn came under fire from afew organizations that perceived seriousdoctrinal discrepancies in Hinn' s theology.

The most public criticism of Hinn'steachings came from the Christian Re-search Institute which took Hinn and hispublisher, Thomas Nelson Company, totask for what CRI perceived as hereticalstatements. This resulted in Nelson revis-ing the questionable material in its laterreleases and Hinn apologizing and promis-ing not to promote in the future the teach-ings under question. However, ThomasNelson Company spokesmen Bruce Bar-bour (publisher) and Bill Watkins (senioreditor) as well as Hinn, say that the theol-ogy expressed in the original edition hasnot been changed but merely "clarified."

Yet Hinn does claim to have changedhis mind about other teachings not dealtwith in Good Morning, Holy Spirit, mostnotably the "Jesus-died-spiritually" heresythat has characterized the theology of theword-faith teachers from E.W. Kenyonthrough Kenneth Hagin, KennethCopeland and others.

In spite of these developments, manyChristians are still questioning whereBenny Hion is coming from. And in viewof his continued popularity within the

Christian marketplace, we felt that ananalysisofHinn's teachings is in order. Wealso feel that much of the criticism leveledagainst Hinn has been based not on scrip-tural truth, but upon orthodoxy-tradition-ally accepted understanding of issues notnecessarily addressed in clear terms byScripture. It is our hope to set these dif-ferences apart.

THEMANBenny Hinn was born in 1953 in Israel

to a Greek father and an Armenian mother.He was raised in the Greek Orthodoxreligion. Hinn claims that while he was ayoung boy of II years-of-age in Israel,God first appeared to him, and has beenappearing to him ever since.! At the age of14, Hinn moved to Canada with hisparents. While attending high school therehe says he had visions of himself preachingbefore huge crowds. He also claims thatGod healed him of a stuttering problem sothat he could become a preacher.

Yet in spite of the visions and God'sappearing to him for several years, Hinnmarks the year of his being born again as1972 when he was about 20 years old. Itwas at a Kathryn Kuhlman service the fol-lowing year that he sa~s he had a "profoundspiritual experience."

THE GREAT CONTROVERSYAs ilion's popularity increased due to

his television program and the runawaysales of Good Morning, Holy Spirit, histeachings came under close scrutiny byseveral apologetics ministries, The Chris-tian Research Institute became especiallyalarmed by ilinn's references to the God-head that seemed at best unorthodox and atworst heretical. On both his television pro-gram and in his book, ilinn asserted that allthree persons of the Triune Godhead havetheir own independent bodies, souls andspirits as well as wills.

God Ihe Falher is a person, God Ihe Sonis a person, God Ihe HolyGhost is a person,but each of Ihem is a triune being by him-self. mcan shock you and maybe r should,there are nine of them God the Falher isa person wiilihis own personaJspirit, withhis own personal soul and his own personalspirit body.

You say, "I never heard of that."Well, do you think you're in this churchto hear things you've heard for the lastSO years? You can't argue wjth the Wordcan you? It's all in the Word.

Please understand, when God says "MySpiri," He means the Holy Spirit. Butwhen He says, "I say," that's Him--hisown personal being speaking This is allin the Word. God the Fath", is a personseparate from the Holy Ghost-totallyseparate. When we say "the Holy Spirit."we do not mean the personal spirit being ofthe Father. He's a separate personality.

Do you know the Holy Spirit has asoul and a body separate from that ofJesus and the Father? The Holy Spirit isthe name of a person who has-hear thisnow, this could shock you. but it will beokay for you-how many are ready tohandle anything this morning? The HolySpirit-here it goes. and you go checkme aut in theBible if you want,but that'salright. Is the Holy Spirit a person? ThenHe is apersonisn'tHe? And a person hasa spirit. See. the Holy Spirit is a person.He's God Ihe Spirit of God who proceedsfrom the Father and from the Son. Butwhen the Holy Ghost left Heaven theFather did not lose His personal Spiritman, if I may call it that.

God the Father has a soul. He said toIsrael, "My soul is weary of you. God theFather has His own spirit body. Hewalks. He walked in the cool of the day.He said to Moses, "1wrote the law withmy finger." A finger that's not flesh,bone and blood-it's a spirit body. He:iaid to Moses, "You can't see myfaeen-He has a face-ubut you can seemy back. He has a back. A spirit body.Do you understand?

knowledgement in the book that changeshave been made. That is, there is no wayof knowing, other Ihan carefully compar-ing select pages, whether one is holdingin one's hands the original or the revisedversion. Although representatives ofThomas Nelson have stated publicly thatchanges were made to clarify Hinn's in-tended meaning, I shall argue that thechanges constitute a revision and notmerely a clarificBlion.8

Bowman is correct in asserting that thechanges constitute more than a clarifica-tion, but this is a minor issue; what is ofimportance is whether or not ilion's teach-ings can legitimately be classified asheretical in the sense that they are unbibli-cal. Or is CRI's bone of contention basedmore on orthodoxy than on biblical uuth?

Bowman began by addressing areas inwhich ilinn and CRr found agreement:

There is much about what Benny Hinnsays concerning the Trinity wilh whichorlhodox Christians can agree. Hinn af-firms that God is a ''triune being" and thatthe three persons "arereally one in Being"(70, 71, 74). He states clearly that IheFalher, Son and Holy Spirit are each fullyGod, emphasizing that the Holy Spirit isjust as much God as the Fath", and the Son(69-71,87,90,131). He also insists that theHoly Spirit is just as real and personal asthe Falher and Son (2, 51, 71). As God,third person of the Trinity (49, 73), the HolySpirit is omnipresent (73,87-88), unlike Iheangeis or the Devil (88), and He is alsoomnipotent and onmiscient (88-89). TheHoly Spirit is a personal friend, companion,and counselor to the Christian (52).

Unfortunately, these bibHcally soundassertions are mixed with statementswhich express notions that are unbiblicaland unorthodox. That Hinn is presentinga novel view of the Trinity is impliedwhen he informs us that "whatl am aboutto share with you regarding the Godheadgave me an entirely new picture of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (81,emphasis added). In context this "entire-ly new picture" is evidently new to mostChristians, and not something that wasmerely new at one time to Hinn. Thus hecomplains that "even dedicated ministersof the gospel" and "clergy" have misledthe church in this matter....

Although this teaching is not ab-solutely new (it has been taught by FJ.Dake, Jimmy Swaggart, and others), it isnew enough in most circles to account forHinn's repeated claim that most Chris-tians and even most ministers have ig-noredit.9

It is true that this concept of the Trinityis not new. So why get upset that BennyHion has espoused it at this late date? More

When Jesus was on earth on the cross,the Holy Ghost left Him, and when theHoly Ghost left Him He said, "My God,my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"...He said, "Into thy hands r commit myspirit"-a separate person....

When He was in the garden He said,"My soul [is] exceedingly sorrowful,even unto death." And He hung on thecross in His physical body. The HolyGhost went back to Heaven. The spirit ofJesus Himself went to the underworld.His body laid in the grave [sic]....

God the Father then is a triune beingwithin Himself. He's a person; He hasHis own spirit, He has a soul, He wills,He thinks, He feels, He wants....

God thinks ... separate from the Sonand separate from the Holy Ghost. Thesame with Jesus and the same with theHoly Ghost. Isn't that clear?

God the Father is a separate in-dividual from the Son and the HolyGhost is a triune being who walks in aspirit body, and He has hair, He has eyes,He has a mouth, He has hands, He has abeing that looks like a flame of fire.

Jesus the Son has His own spirit thatHe committed to the Father that went tothe underworld and defeated the devil,and the Holy Ghost wasn't there....

He rose from thedead with a physical,glorified body. Before Jesus came to theearth He walked in a spirit body.

Please understand, saints, God theFather is not some ball that floats aroundspace in a shapeless form. And JesusChrist, before He became aman, was nota little, misty, shapeless nothing inHeaven. And the Holy Ghost is not somedripping oil from the throne of glory.

Now three persons with threeseparate spirit bodies, but Jesus Christ isthe only one in Glory today that is walk-ing around with a glorifjed body of flesh,because He rose from the dead.7

Shocked by such "unorthodox" state-ments voiced on television and in his book,the Christian Research Institute requested

a meeting with Hinn. Roben M. Bowman,Ir., at the time a researcher for CRI, wroteabout that meeting in the Spring, 1991issue of Christian Research Journal.

I met with Benny Hinn on December5,1990, along with Hank HanegraaffandBob Lyle of the Christian Research In-stitute (CRI), to discuss CRI's concernsabout this book. After thatmeeting, andin consultation with HinD.Thomas Nel-son Publishers made several changes inthe eighth printing of the book (January1991). (Thomas Nelson is a generallyreputable Christian publishing housecarrying a number of fine books whichCRI continues to endorse and even dis-tribute to the public.) There is no 8C-

2

importantly, is this teaching really unbibli-cal? Bowman offers his view of ic

The notion that the three divine per-

sons have three separate constitutions ofspirit, soul, and body is inconsistent with

orthodoxy because it implies that theyare really three separate beings ratherthan (as Hinn also does say in passing)one divine being in three persons. Thisimplication is underscored by Hinn'sassertion later that "the Trinity. as we see,

is comprised of three distinct and unique

ootities" (140, 1st ed.). Hinn pictures theTrinity as "8 team working togetherincomplete accord and eternal harmony"(144, 1st ed.; emphasis added).IO

Arguments based on orthodoxy are ques-tionable themselves. Orthodoxy, though alegitmate term when referring to Scripturaltruth, is often applied to IIaditionaJ inter-pretations of Scripture. In the latter sense, itis cenainly no measure of truth. Scripcurealone is the measure of truth. Otherwise or-thodoxy-{)r IIaditionaJ understanding of theearly Church, including the Roman Catholic

Church-is de facto the true magisterium, orteaching authority, for all believers.

What alarmed most critics of Hinn is hisstatement that "there are nine of them."Some took this to mean that there are ninepersons, which is not what Hinn wassaying. "Nine of them" referred to theseparate elements of the Trinity: threebodies, souls and spirits." While this mayboggle the minds of those enamored oforthodoxy, there is nothing in Scripturethat actually defines the nature of the Tri-une Godhead.

No one can define the Trinity beyond acertain amount of conjecture. The mysteryof God remains with God, as it should.Because someone's theory doesn't coin-cide with "orthodox" theory doesn't negateor support either theory.

But there is a problem with Hinn's ap-proach. He is as dogmatic about his conjec-ture as those who oppose him from theposition of orthodoxy are about theirs.Hinn is clearly guilty of teaching as"revelation knowledge" (God's Truth im-parted to him personally) something that isnot clearly supported by Scripture. Assuch, he has established in the minds ofthose who trust him a personal belief as ifit were authoritative truth, which it is not.

Bowman points out some other unor-thodox positions taken by Hinn, but offersno Scriptural rebuttal:

Finally, Hinn compromises the deity ofChrist wheo he argues that "had the Holy

Spirit not been with Jesus, He wouldhave ["may have likely," 2d cd.]sinned Without the Holy Ghost Jesuswould ["may," 2d 00.] have never made

it" (135). This implies that Jesus over-came sin as a mere man empowered bythe Spirit, and that he could have failed.While Jesus was filled aod anointed by theSpiri~ and while the Spirit was involved inJesus' overcoming of temptation.Jesuswas no mere man indwelled by the Spirit-he was the divine Son of God incarnate.There are orthodox theologians who lutveheld that Jesus was able to sin. I can agreeor disagree with this assertion, dependingon what is meant by it. But the real questionhere is not whether aod in what sease Jesusmight have sinned, but Hinn's assertionthat Jesus would or might have sinoed hadit not been for the Holy Spirit dwelling inhim. Such a statementis by all accounts

inconsistent with Hinn's confession thatJesus was God.]]

As much as I would identify more withCRI's position, Hinn nowhere implies thatJesus was a mere man indwelled by theHoly Spirit. In fact, Hinn didn't say any-thing that Bowman admits some "orthodoxtheologians" would say. This is one ofthose controversies that amounts to noth-ing. To say that Hinn's statement is by allaccounts inconsistent with his confessionthat Jesus was God is not entirely true,because even the most orthodox theologiansays that Jesus was fully God and fullyman. Thus, those who hold that Jesus couldhave sinned without the indwellingpresence of the Holy Spirit are alluding toHis willingly subjecting Himself to thelimitations of humanity and placing Him-self at the mercy of the world and all itstemptations. But they would also say thatthe Father proved Himself able to preserveHis Son from sin by giving Him the HolySpirit in full measure as a means to over-come those temptations.

Now, whether or not one agrees with

this hypothesis, the point is that Hinn can-not be faulted for his position merely be-cause he stated it in "unorthodox" terms.

What Hinn did bring out is the fact thatJesus has a separate will that He surrenderedto the will of the Father. This is stated manytimes in Scripture. But it took an act of Hisown will to do so. Had He not done so, Hewould surely have sinned, and God's plan ofredemption would have heen thwarted.

This is all very well to argue in theory, butthe truth is that Jesus did not sin, neither wasguile found in His mouth (I Peter2:22). Now,

the fact that there was no guile found inJesus'mouth is not a valid basis for !he argument

-----

that He could not have sinned. BecauseJesus Himself gave that same testimony ofNathanael in John I :42, and Nathanael wasa mere man subject to sin,

So, setting all theories aside, Hinn' sandthose of "orthodoxy," it must be stated thatthe only thing that can be known for sureabout the nature of God is what Scripturereveals; and Scripture reveals very littlewhen we consider the magnitude of Hisbeing. Yet in spite of his not offering anybiblical refutation of Hinn's position,Bowman accuses Hinn of teaching an "im-plicit tritheism";

In short, in the original version of thisbook Hinn taught (no doubt oowiningly) afann of implicit tritheism (belief in threeGods or three divine beings). Certainly inno version of the book does Hinn teachexplicil lritheism. since HUm affmns thatGod is one being and never says they arethree Gods. But his refexring to the threepersons as separate "entities," his insis-tence that they are madcedly different inpersonality traits, and his teaching that eachpossesses a separate spirit, sou~ and body,

contradict the few passing references in thebook to the Trinity as one triooe being (70,71,74). Hinn's doctrine of the Trinity, then,

at least in this version, may be classified as"aberrational" - neither sOl.Uldly orthodox

nor thoroughly heretical, but a nrixture oforthodox and ooorthodox elerneots.'2

This statement is confusing at best. Inthe first place it again pits orthodoxyagainst heresy rather than biblical truthagainst heresy. In the second place it im-plies that orthodoxy mixed with heresy isnot heresy, which it is. Most heresies con-tain elements of truth; it is the hereticalaspect of the overall belief system thatplaces it in the class of heresy. In the thirdplace, since even "orthodox theologians"wrestle with the elements with which Hinndeals here, it seems incorrect to say thatHinn is teaching an "implicit tritheism." Itmight just as well be argued that Bowmanteaches an implicit oneness doctrine, sincehe has a problem with Hinn's calling thethree persons "entities." What is a personbut an entity?

In fact, those who hold the Onenessdoctrine of God's nature see the orthodoxexplanation of the Trinity as espousing threegods. The point is that, at best, all attempts toderme the Godhead prove futile.

If I appear to be agreeing with Hinn inthis issue, I'm not. But if one is going to bean apologist for the Faith, he must learn todistinguish between unorthodox and un-biblical teachings. Bowman accused Hinn

3

of both in his understanding of the Trinity;yet he offered no sound biblical refutationof Hinn's position. I have found no onewho can state the Trinitarian position withabsolute terms that once and for all definethe exact makeup of the Godhead.

Still, in the final analysis, I must agreewith Bowman's assessment that Hinn'sposition is "incoherent" Hinn rambles offhis beliefs without offering solid Scriptureto back them up.

All in all, we owe much to Bowman andCRI for challenging Hinn' s teachings,especially as they appeared in the firstedition. As a result of that challenge, forexample, Hinn did change his assertionthat Jesus "would" have sinned to "may"have sinned, as a result of his dialoguewith CRI. Also, Hinn appears to havecome away from the meeting with agreater respect for accuracy in stating

one's beliefs, as well as for those mini-stries on the front line of confronting error.Prior to this Hinn had made statementsridiculing apologist ministries, evenavowing his desire to destroy them if Godwould only allow it. One such statementcaused no small stir, as it should have:

You wonderful people of God, quitattacking men of God by name!Somebody's attacking me because ofsomething I'm teaching! Let me tell yousomething brother, you watch it!...Idon't mind if they attack Benny and theway he is and the way he walks, but don'tattack the anointing on my life; don'tattack this man of God [Paul Crouch].There is a group here in California thatthinks they are the judgment seat ofChrist! They judge everything you do.Listen here, fella, let me tell you some-thing: you're not my judge; Jesus is myjudge! You walk aroundwith your stifflip andcollar on yourneck-dear God inHeaven I wish I could just-ooh!

They call it a ministry, my footl Youknow, I've looked for one verse in theBible-I just can't seem to fInd it-oneverse that says, "If you don't like 'em.kill' em!"1 really wish I could find itl Butthere's nowhere in the Bible where itsaysitl...

Sometimes I wish God would giveme a Holy Ghost machine gun! I'd blowyour head Off!13

Strong words that echo the frustrationthat comes to one who leaves himself opento criticism by espousing erroneous teach-ings and practices. After his meeting withCRI, however, Hinn stated that he wassorry for making such a statement. Yet ifthe statement itself was bad, what was

worse was the reaction of Paul and JanCrouch, and the TBN audience: an attitudeof mirth and vigorous applause, And theseare the people whose tearful pleas for unityof the Body of Christ convince millionsthat doctrine is of little or no importance,

Among all the apologist ministries, Iknow of none who would advocate such anapproach toward those whose teachingsthey scrutinize. On the contrary, in meet-ings with various other ministries, the af-fmnation of love for those with whom wefind disagreement is always prevalent.

THE SERIOUS ISSUESWhile Hinn' s teachings on the Trinity

have captured the forefront of the debatebetween himself and the apologist mini-stries, there are other serious issues thathave taken a back seat to the questionableTrinitarian controversy-issues that trulydo lean toward heresy. We'll look at theseissues briefly and attempt to deal with themin as honest a fashion as possible.

A God-ManHinn teaches that when one is born again

by faith in Jesus, he is given a new spirit man

that wasn't there before--a spirit man that isdivine in nature and God-like.

When you were born again God gaveyou this brand new being, this brand newbeing was created before the foundationof the World. Ephesians 1 declares thatGod literally chose us before the founda-tion of the world and there it talks aboutour spirit-man....

Your spirit, ladies and gentlemen, isGod.like; he's God-like in everyway The second this spirit.man comesinto our being-pops into our bodies-we're born again. He's spirit; what'sborn of spirit is spirit.

Say after me, within me is a God-man. Say it again, within me is a God-man.

Now let's say even better than that,let's say, I am a God-man. When you sayI am a God-man you're not talking aboutyour flesh or your soul; you're talkingabout your spirit.man,14

Now, remembeI, everything Jesus did,He did so we can receive the opposite!What He gave up, He was saying, "You areto receive what I gave up!" Now it's likethis: I have His name on earth! Isn't thatright? He said, "00 ye in my name." Isn'tthat right? What is it to have the name ofJesus? It means to have His office!...

Paul the apostle said that Jesus isstanding before the throne as the Son ofMan. He called Him the "Man-Christl"Now, you ready for some real revelationknowledge? Okay, now watch this.

He laid aside His divine form. Nowthese are the seven steps from the gloryto the cross. He laid aside His divineform! Why? so one day I would beclothed on with the divine form!

Kenneth Hagin has a teaching-<llotof people have problems with it, yet it isabsolute truth. Kenneth Copeland has ateaching-many Christians have putholes in it, but it's divine truth. Hagin andCopeland say , "You are God; ye areGodl"

"Hooo! I can't be God!" Hold it; let'sbring balance to this teaching. The balance,sir, is being taught by Hagin; it's those thatrepeat him that mess it upl The balance isbeing taught by Copeland-who is mydear ftiend-but it's those that repeat whathe says thataremessing itupl You see, dearbrother, when lesus was on earth, theBiblesays that fust He disrobed Himself of thedivine form! He, the limitless God. becamea man that we men may become as He is!This is what we miss!

Now, when He took off His divineform. He also told me that the day willcome when I will put on His form that Hegave up. Everything Jesus did was so Icould receive what He gave up! So whenKenneth Hagin says, "You are God onearth," he's not exactly offl What he'ssaying is, "As He is, so are we in this

world!"

No, he's not saying we've replaced

Him! He's saying we have become, wehave taken His office on planet earth!"

No sir! God is God and there's onlyone God! But the Bible does teach, andthe Bible does say, and the Bible doesstate that He took off His divine FormlAnd the Bible says we put on Christ!"

Heyl Is it in the Bible-yes or no?[crowd says, "Yes!"p'

Throughout his dissertations Hinnavows that the Bible says what he says. Buthis ploy is the same as thatoffalse teachers,which is to pull a proof text out of contextand apply it to their personal interpretationwhich they claim has been given by directrevelation from God. Where in Scriptureis it found that some "spirit-man" distinctfrom us, comes into us? The Holy Spiritcomes into us, but Hinn isn't speaking ofthe Holy Spirit, because he says this spirit-man was "created before the foundation ofthe world."

To cite Ephesians I as a proof text is agross error. It does speak of our being chosenin Christ before the foundation of the world;nowhere does it mention a God-like "spirit-man," let alone one distinct from us.

And what does Scripture mean when itsays, "put on Christ?"

4

Let us walk honestly, as in the day;not in rioting and drunkenness, not inchambering and wantonness, not instrife and envying.

Butput ye on theLordJesusC hrist,andmake notprovisionfor theJlesh, tofulfil thelusts thereof (Romans 13:13-(4)

What is the obvious context of Paul'sstatement to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ?"First of all, it's a command-it isn't a state-ment of a completed fact; he does not say thatwe have put on Christ as if that is the resultof the new birth. And nowhere is there a hintthat we have become a "God-man" or that wehave taken Christ's office.

There is only one Christ-Jesus. Andwhile we may be ambassadors of Heaven,so to speak, it doesn't mean we have powerof attorney to act as God on earth. That isthe historical position of the pope of Rome,not the true believer in Christ.

Nor, for that matter, does Scripture saythat Jesus put off his divine form, whateverthat means. When He became a man and puton human flesh, the spirit of Jesus remainedthat of the Word of God. Only in the sensethat He willingly limited himself by humanflesh and, possibly, the human brain, wasthere any diminishing of His powers. ButScripture doesn't indicate anywhere that Heleft some parlof Himself in Heaven when Hecame to earth. (What does this do to Hinn' s"three bodies" theory?)

While asserting that we are not Al-mighty God Himself (big whoop!), Hinninsists that we are now divine:

And God looked, and said, "Youknow, that thing down there don't thinklike I think; don 'tdo what I do; don't livelike I live-everything about it is dif-ferent! But I'm willing to be one of youso I can make it to be one of me." Godcarne to earth and touched a piece of dustand turned it into a god!

"Say, what did you say?"

Are you a child of God? Then you'renot dust no more. Are you child of God?Then you're divine! Are you a child ofGod? Then you're not human; the onlyhuman part of you is this face-the onethat will go back to the dust itcarne from.But inside this being is a new creation inChrist Jesus. That is divine and God-likein every way!16

Hinn continues by denying that he issaying we are God but affIrming that weare children of God (elsewhere he assertsthat we are gods), and not to make themistake of putting words in his mouth. Butno words need be put in his mouth. Whereare the words of Scripture to back him up?

And God's poor English aside, I don'tthink He told Hinn to say those things. Ifone is divine, that means He is of the samenature and essence as God. That can onlybe said of the Father, the Word and theHoly Spirit. There are no other divine per-sons except in the false spiritual hierarchyof Mormonism and New Age philosophy.

Jesus is the Son of God by generation;He came forth from the Father. We arechildren of God by adoption. That does notmake us of the same nature as God. We willalways retain our human nature,

Jesus Took On Satan's NatureOne of the popular word-faith teachings

is that Jesus took on the nature of Satan andhad to be born again. This doctrine is in-trinsically linked to the "Jesus-died-spiritually" heresy which postulates that

Jesus' shed blood was insuffIcient for theredemption of man; He had to suffer at

Satan's hands in Hell and be born again asthe first man to conquer death. Hinn alsoteaches this heresy:

He [Jesus] who is righteousness bychoice said, 'The only way I can stop sinis by Me becoming it. I can't just stop itby letting it touch Me; I and it mustbecome one." Hear this! He who is thenature of God became the nature of Satanwhen He became sinp7

In this one statement. Hinn manages toconvey three distinct errors concerning Jesus,to which we must answer the following: I)Jesus is not righteousness by choice, but bynature; 2) Jesus never said these words, eitherin Scripture or to Benny Hinn personally, be-

cause they are unbiblicaJ; 3) Jesus' nature isconstant; even God cannot change His nature

from God to something else. When He becameaman, the WordofGodco-mingledHisdivine

nature with the flesh of man, not angels; butthat is the limit of His approaching anythinglike assuming Satan's nature. This idea is afIrst-rate heresy which, drawn to its conclusionin the supposed spiritual death ofJesus deniesthe blood of Christ and damns those who teachand believe it unless they repent itisa differentgospel from that given through Scripture.

This isn't the only time and place thatHinn has taught this heresy. it has been partof his baggage for years and is stillpropagated through th, sale of tapes,

In spite of Hinn' s professed rejection ofthe word-faith message, he hasn't given upon it entirely. The word-faith message en-compasses far more than the "name-il-and-claim it" foolishness, it is intrinsically linkedto the God-man-believer and Jesus-died-

spiritually heresies, which Hinn continuesto espouse. It exalts man and denigratesChrist, as most false teachings do.

The problem with these and other teach-ings ofHinn is that he exhibits the mindsetof someone who "learned as he earned,"strewing spiritual wreckage in his path.Whatever comes to mind must be God'svoice; after all, Hinn believes himself aprophet of God. And woe to those who darechallenge him.

Man, I remember when God wouldgive me words of knowledge back whenI began in this ministry. I missed nine outof ten. Nobody knew it except me.

"Well, Benny Hinn, I thought whenthe Holy Ghost"-saints, the Holy Ghostis using an imperfect vessel. Are youlistening? We're not infallible. Or whenyou give a prophecy sometimes you canbe way off; you have to be open enoughto say I blew it.

"Hooo! He blew it; he's a falseprophet!..

No, he just blew it.

Just because you blow it-men ofGod blow it all the time. Paul blew it;Moses blew it; even Elijah blew it; evenElisha blew itl They all blew it. Maybenot with prophecies, but they blew it inall1cinds of things. Like Elijah goes andsays, "Lemme die! I wanna die! I wannadie!" That's a bad blow!

Peter decides to withdraw himselffrom the Gentiles; he blew it badl

We all blow i~ and if you don't you'renot human. Don'tforget. the man who doesnot use the eraser is no good! Theman withclean eraser-untouched--don't touchhim. The man who does not know how tosay, '1 blew i~" [you] can't IrUSthim.

Did you hear that? So-but you see,when the gift begins-is this helpingyou?-when the gift begins it beginsrough. but then as you keep going with ityou just get better and better and cleaner

and purer with it. So today with the word

of knowledge-I'm just being open withyou-I rarelymiss anymore. Why? Be-cause I recognize how to operate in it.[Hinn snaps his fingers.]"

Hinn continues by recounting times when

he's known things by the Spirit of God thathe could not have known otherwise,

Notice Hinn's irrational comparing ofpersonal sin with error in prophecy, as iffalse prophecy is not acceptable evidenceof a false prophet. This claim of acceptableerrancy in prophecy is held by vinually allwho claim to be prophets today. Obvious-ly either they must claim it or acknow-ledge that they are false prophets. Butrather than do that, they attack those who

5