I read that Michael Brown recently offered a potential defense of Benny Hinn on the grounds the Hinn has repudiated his heresies. (Admittedly, this is second-hand. I haven't listened to Brown's broadcast.) Assuming that's an accurate summary of Brown's argument, it presents a conundrum. How, exactly, would Hinn be able to retract his heresies? Doesn't he claim to be a prophet? Didn't he originally claim that his theological aberrations were the result of his prophetic insights? The only consistent way for Hinn to recant his heresies would be for him to recant his prophetic pretensions. Confess that he never was a real prophet. That he was either a deceiver or self-deceived.
Michael Brown says that to be a false prophet one must be an unbeliever. He like many charismatics believes that prophets do not always have to be correct.
ReplyDeleteThis situation shows the dangers of that view. Even someone with as many obvious false prophecies as Benny Hinn can't be condemned as a false prophet. If a deceiver comes with destructive prophecies and they don't have any obvious doctrinal or moral failings there's no way to identify them.