# If you were Hank Hannegraff



## Ranger (Jan 11, 2005)

Wouldn't you find it odd that you have a view of election that has no church tradition or historical acceptance, and only a minimal acceptance today. I know that it keeps the weaker Calvinists and Arminians that listen to him happy in his and their ambiguity, but for someone who claims to be an authority, he doesn't have hardly anything to stand on. He criticizes dispensationalism for its lack of roots in church history, but even it has more history than his flawed doctrine of election.

Maybe I'm just missing something in my studies. Are there any traces of this view in the history of the church?


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 11, 2005)

If I were Hank Haanagraf he would be reformed!


----------



## ANT (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm not familiar with his view on election.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 11, 2005)

You have to remember the ratings: he's on at the same time as Art Bell.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Jan 11, 2005)

If I were Hank Hannagraff I'd be doing EXACTLY what Hank Hannagraff is doing because I'd be Hank Hannegraff.


----------



## Robin (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> If I were Hank Hannagraff I'd be doing EXACTLY what Hank Hannagraff is doing because I'd be Hank Hannegraff.



I agree with Chris....

But - heads-up guys.....I'm sure you'll relate to this....

BTW, Walter Martin was my old teacher - in a galaxy far, far away....those of us who studied with him, miss him dearly! We are his "legacy" - God help us.

Walter would be horribly grieved to see what CRI has become under Hannegraff. It is the Biblical case of greed and seduction - the selling-out of the True Gospel for personal profit.

Mr. Hannegraff MUST play the ambiguity games else he would alienate his largest demographic where the most sales are made ("teaching materials" mostly culled from minimum wage- researchers; and the frequent speaking gigs in all of "Arminian evangelicalism") It's about conflict of interest. I don't know his heart (nor is it any of our jobs to know) but his teachings and public actions must be discerned carefully. Hank is a "shooting star" -- who knows where he will wind-up? Walter never exploited his position of "authority" to profit.

I hope and pray we can notice the LESSON: "Para-church" organizations are NOT Biblical and not OK because there is always the ultimate problem of impropriety - Christ's Name is misrepresented/abused/used - & those weak in the Faith can be hurt.



Robin


----------



## Ranger (Jan 11, 2005)

Okay, here is a quick summary of his view:
1. Christ was elected in eternity past as the means for salvation.
2. Our union with Christ causes us to be elected through him.
3. We unite with Christ through our free will decision of faith.

Therefore, election has nothing to do with individuals at all. Therefore, he can say he believes in election, while still having a secular understanding of free will. And his views on the atonement are in line with the modern false belief that Christ didn't atone for individuals, but made salvation possible for everyone, and that it is our unity with Christ that atones for our sins (ala Kennedy in "Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin"). I believe Geisler takes a similar view as well. *gag* On another thread it was referred to as the neo-orthodox view, but it doesn't sound Barthian, but who knows. Does anyone know of any sect of the church other than this modern one throughout all of church history who believed this?


----------



## heartoflesh (Jan 11, 2005)

I quit listening to Hank after he had James White and ? Bryson on his show debating Calvinism. I felt like they barely gave White a chance (who did brilliantly besides his great disadvantage).


----------



## Scot (Jan 11, 2005)

> I quit listening to Hank after he had James White and ? Bryson on his show debating Calvinism. I felt like they barely gave White a chance (who did brilliantly besides his great disadvantage).



Yeah, when White did have a chance to speak, I thought he made the other guy sound silly. Hank was raised in a calvinistic home wasn't he? I think I've heard him say that before.

He also believes that speaking in tongues is still valid for today.

Robin,

Didn't Martin believe this also?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

If I was hank for a day I would find a new profession. Maybe the toilet paper industry.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

I frankly do not appreciate--no, in fact I am disgusted by--the over-generalizations and unwarranted statements I sometimes see about Hanegraaff on this board, including this thread. No one here will dispute that his theology has serious errors in it, most notably his rejection of the doctrines of grace and, in my view, his credobaptism. That being said, there is absolutely no warrant to claim that he is "selling out the truth for profit" or is "exploiting his position of authority to profit."

While I agree he still has great error to turn from, that does not change the fact that he is a voice of reason to so many of the wishy-washy, feelings-over-thought, charismania Left-Behind-Dispensationalist evanjellyfish out there. He has come a long way over the past couple years, as he has just recently begun speaking out against Dispensationalism, both in its view of the people of God and its view of eschatology. So we should thank God that he is able to show many people the errors of such thinking, people who would in their current situation never hear anything by Reformed teachers. Furthermore, I do not think he is simply being closed-minded to Calvinism on purpose, since he does not hastily call it the same grave extent of heresy that people like Dave Hunt, Tim LaHaye, Norman Geisler, Chuck Missler and Chuck Smith do. So since Hank is coming along in discovering more and more falsehood, we should be praying for him, not lumping him together with the evanjellyfish that he is in fact _partially_ speaking out against now.



> _Originally posted by Scot_
> Hank was raised in a calvinistic home wasn't he? I think I've heard him say that before.



Yes, he was - his father was a Dutch Reformed pastor.



> _Originally posted by Scot_
> He also believes that speaking in tongues is still valid for today.



Actually, he personally does not. Because he has criticized the excesses of of Third Wave revivalism and Word of Faith teaching, he is often accused by people of being anti-charismatic, so sometimes on his show (and in books) he clarifies that he is not blasting charismatism, but only Pentecostal excesses, and that he does not see charismatism as heretical in the same way he does Third Wave revivalism. But comments of his have made it clear that, while he wants to make it clear that he is not concerned to blast charismatism, he himself does not believe in the spiritual gifts. Furthermore, he does briefly critique the "end times restoration of tongues" view in his book, _Counterfeit Revival_.



> _Originally posted by Scot_
> Didn't Martin believe this also?



Unlike Hanegraaff, Martin was indeed a charismatic - yet one more reason it confuses me to see avid Martin-supporters on on this board dismissing Hank as useless.


----------



## Ranger (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm with you Chris. His ministry has actually meant alot to me. He has clearly succumbed in certain ways to pop-theology though. The problem is that if you mention his name; the masses will dogpile him. He did call hyper-Calvinism a heresy last Wednesday though in response to a caller questioning Romans 9, and I know that many people call the doctrines of grace "hyper-calvinism" as compared to the pop-theology three or four-point Calvinism of Geisler and such.

I just want someone to answer my initial question. Is there any historical merit to his view of election and atonement? I can't think of any, and would like some help if there is someone else that can. My question is really about the view, and not Hannegraaf at all, he is just the only person that I have heard really espouse it other than Norman Geisler and Kevin Kennedy (who I don't know believes it himself, but argues Calvin did).

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Ranger]


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> Okay, here is a quick summary of his view:
> 1. Christ was elected in eternity past as the means for salvation.
> 2. Our union with Christ causes us to be elected through him.
> ...





For starters I'd like to know how he reconciles this view in light of *Ephesians 1:3-11*? in my opinion, they clash.


----------



## Scot (Jan 12, 2005)

> > Originally posted by Scot
> > He also believes that speaking in tongues is still valid for today.
> 
> 
> ...



Chris,

I'm sure I've heard him say that tongues can still happen today as long as there's an interpretor. He said that it is not the norm but he wouldn't go as far as MacArthur and say they've completely ceased.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I quit listening to Hank after he had James White and ? Bryson on his show debating Calvinism. I felt like they barely gave White a chance (who did brilliantly besides his great disadvantage).



My question was , why would White even give them the time of day? G. Brysons book on Calvinism was at best hilarious.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> 
> 
> I'm with you Chris. His ministry has actually meant alot to me. He has clearly succumbed in certain ways to pop-theology though. The problem is that if you mention his name; the masses will dogpile him. He did call hyper-Calvinism a heresy last Wednesday though in response to a caller questioning Romans 9, and I know that many people call the doctrines of grace "hyper-calvinism" as compared to the pop-theology three or four-point Calvinism of Geisler and such.
> ...



I would say that it does have _historical_ merit in that it is a form of Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism.


----------



## ANT (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Just to get the truth known. 

I guess we could ask this question of all his scheduled debates and talks with different religious representative heads as well. With all his debates and radio programs with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Roman Catholics .... etc. It's not that he is trying to convert the opposition, but more, I think he is informing the body of Christ to the dangers of the differences. I have been to a few of his appearances and debates and I have never seen his opposition change their views. I, on the other hand, have left more informed and more well equipped to deal with the differences.

I personally know alot of people that are not as understanding of theological issues. They just do not have the capacity (or do not use or manifest it) to study the inner workings of the doctrines of grace. Even though White can be a bit hard to grasp for them (when he starts getting into greek terms and language issues) they still benefit and gain better understanding by hearing him.

Just my 2 cents.

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by ANT]


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> Okay, here is a quick summary of his view:
> 1. Christ was elected in eternity past as the means for salvation.
> 2. Our union with Christ causes us to be elected through him.
> ...



I have encountered the following false beliefs of Christ's atonement:

1. Christ died for everyone and He was punished for all of our sins, except for the sin of unbelief. This view turns a person's faith into a work that merits salvation. One would have to avoid the sin that Jesus did not die for in order to be saved. 

2. Christ died for everyone and He was punished for all of our sins, but if a person does not accept what Christ did then he will be punished for his sins in hell. Another way of stating this view is that the people in hell are paying a debt that has already been paid for. This view perverts God's justice. How do you pay a debt that has already been paid for? Why will you receive punishment for your sin if the punishment for your sin has already been taken care of? This view also turns a person's faith into a work that merits salvation. A person's decision to accept Christ or reject Christ is what determines whether or not one is saved. 





[Edited on 13-1-2005 by cih1355]


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ranger_
> Okay, here is a quick summary of his view:
> 1. Christ was elected in eternity past as the means for salvation.
> 2. Our union with Christ causes us to be elected through him.
> ...



This is a flawed doctrine of election but it does have historical roots. What he is describing is classical Arminianism. This is how they dealt with Predestination.


----------



## Ranger (Jan 13, 2005)

In my studies of classical Arminianism, I haven't read that yet. Could you give some references?

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by Ranger]


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 14, 2005)

I thought the Arminian view of predestination was that God looked into the future and elected those whom He foresaw choosing Christ.


----------



## Ranger (Jan 15, 2005)

That's what I thought as well Curt. That's why I am interested in some references to this other form that has no merit from what I can tell.


----------

