Featured Has Hank Hanagraaf left the faith?

No, I am not going to argue at all.

It seems to me that the title calls his salvation in question only if you read it without the context of opening post.

 

You mean you aren't going to argue...any more.

At all does not apply at this point.

And the "arguing" in view is supporting a position, by the way.

I would agree with that, however, we also look at the responses of the members who responded to both.


God bless.

 

Oh, the grammatical approach again.

I guess one could view these statements...

...could be viewed as non-judgmental, but...not to me.

You have judged that "the faith" is...

...when there was no "collective Doctrine" as Hank has today.

It seems that you are teaching that Christianity is "Conservative Evangelicalism," and the problem I have with that is that there is so much error among "Conservative Evangelicals." There is no singular group.

And furthermore, to say that only "Conservative Evangelicals" are the only ones holding to sound and pure doctrine is absurd.

If...

...then perhaps "we" should be a little more diligent about doing that in our own corners of the world. There's plenty to go around...

Where is your support that judgment?

You have said:

You have, T. And I am not speaking about "judging his salvation," simply looking at your judgment as presented in this thread, which in large part deals with Doctrine.

So here it is, if one is to be considered "not in the faith" because of the group they are part of, and the doctrine they hold to...

...what about all the error in every Conservative Evangelical group?

In other words, it sounds like only those who embrace Conservative Evangelicalism are...in the faith.

Sounds pretty judgmental to me.

I am not familiar with his view on Baptism. Nothing he has ever said about Baptism has ever stood out in the programs I have heard.

Same here. It has always been more centered on his views on other issues,

The question is not supporting sacerdotalism it is just a matter of pointing out that many people, in all groups...look to the leadership as though they have a more intimate connection with God, and that intervention is accelerated by going to them.

I apologize for the implication, I was in a hurry and did not expand on this. I did speak about the issue afterwards, which I guess I thought would explain what I meant.

It doesn't, it has to do with the reality of the perceptions of people in the congregation in regards to the leadership.

We seldom see people actually following the Doctrinal Statements of their groups.

And no-one in the Conservative Evangelical arena...practices unbiblical traditions?

How about tithing? That is not a Christian Doctrine, it is a a Doctrine of the Covenant of Law.

Do you view free will Baptists as having left the faith?

How about Charismatics? No-one "in the faith" because they believe God is still giving revelation?

Remember...

Continued...

 

And this is what is said about Sacramentarians:

The Sacramentarians were Christians during the Protestant Reformation who denied not only the Roman Catholic transubstantiation but also the Lutheran sacramental union.

Which is why this confused me (go ahead, laugh, lol, its okay).

Might want to consider...

Lutheran theological doctrine

So were the Lutherans "in the faith?"

Okay, thanks. So they call this being "sacraementarian?"

Well, if the people have to go to a priest...

TCassidy said: ↑

Yes. An EO priest speaks to God on behalf of the worshippers (I can speak for myself, thank you - that is what the priesthood of the believer is all about) and speaks for God to the worshippers (sorry, but God can speak for Himself too)

I failed to point out the second statement: is it not typical that we believe that our leadership (Pastor, Minister, what have you) speaks to us through the appointed leadership?

I didn't:


TCassidy said: ↑

Yes. An EO priest speaks to God on behalf of the worshippers (I can speak for myself, thank you - that is what the priesthood of the believer is all about)

Again, could you produce a statement from an official document that addresses the focus...

TCassidy said: ↑

In fact the EO church denies the priesthood of the believer.

Your statement, so please support it from their Doctrinal Statement/s.

You will have to ask Hank if he now denies justification by faith alone. [/QUOTE]

I am asking you this...

You are not implying that if one rejects justification by faith they are rejecting "The Faith?"

And it is a question, T, not a charge. If you do not mean to imply that, you can simply answer the question. We already know Hank denies "leaving the faith."

You don't know? So its okay to imply he has "left the faith (which turns out to be Conservative Evangelicalism and the collective Doctrine of the Bible) without knowing for sure?

TCassidy said: ↑

If Hank says he has not denied the faith once delivered, what exactly does he think that faith is?

The doctrine of justification by faith is virtually absent from the history and theology of the Orthodox Church.

Where have I asked if he was saved?

What I have done is question asking whether he has "left the faith" because he is now assumed to have adopted error, when in fact...

...that is nothing new with Hank.

I have been clear:

And I will take this opportunity to correct the latter statement, it should read "..that he believes he is doing the will of God in His Ministry."

Doesn't change the fact that "The Faith" is euphemistic for Christianity. And it doesn't require knowledge of the collective doctrine of the Bible, simply an understanding of the Gospel.

And anyone denying that this is generally accepted begs the question why such a basic view would be denied.

And by the way...

...since when does anyone agree with me?




Continued...

 

It is actually two-fold, first addresses one "leaving the faith," which in the minds of most is going to equate to salvation, regardless of how much you deny that. Secondly, it addresses assuming he was "in the faith," particularly if we determine that by not allowing for error in one's Theology. The point being...everyone has error.

So are you going to argue that those who are not in the faith are not saved? And argue that those who are in "Conservative Evangelical groups" are? That seems to be the case.

That is correct.

So perhaps you could expand on what it means to "leave the faith." Does that mean leaving an Evangelical group (conservative of course, though I did not view Hank as conservative, but rather liberal), or the collective Doctrine of the Bible (and by the way when you can point me to a group that holds to the "collective Doctrine of the Bible I will happily join)?

I am not misunderstanding what "leaving the faith" means:


1 John 2:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


Hebrews 10:25
King James Version (KJV)

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.


2 Timothy 4:3
King James Version (KJV)

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

So do Church of Christ members. Have they left the faith because they teach Baptismal Regeneration?

Let me ask you this: have those who teach that Old Testament Saints were eternally redeemed...left the faith?

What does my honesty have to do with it? John makes no mention of trees, lol.

Can these possibly be...in the faith? And I do not imply there were Christians that were actually in the faith at this time, not in a New Covenant sense, but speak of the application of the Lord's teaching in our time.

Not my job.

Ditto.

And what exactly is "the once delivered faith, but the Gospel.

So the implication is that Hank has abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't believe that, but I will try to catch his show to see what he says. I wondered, the other night, why so many people were calling about "the rumor he had left the faith," lol.


God bless.

 

Since I was responding to "you are going to" and not "you have." "at all" should have been sufficient to make the point. Perhaps "at all any more" will suit the rest of the way out.

 

True, which is why a contextual argument is going to be superior to pointing out pronouns.

It's putting all the words together that some have trouble with.

Right, I know, it is Conservative Evangelicalism and the collective body of Biblical Doctrine.

When exactly did believers have full access to "the collective body of Biblical Doctrine?"

Are you saying that believers had a Bible in the first century?



They had the collective Hebrew Scriptures, but, were reliant on the leadership in regards to the Scripture that was being written and spread among the churches. We see Paul addressing much error in the churches (as well as the other Apostles), yet we do not see him imply that they were all "leaving the faith" because of that error.

On the contrary...his intent was to correct the doctrine, and make sure they were in the faith.

Not a jot, not a tittle.

But I do not demand that every believer be flawless in their understanding of Essential Doctrine and conclude that they are either "in the faith" or have "left the faith based on their error.

That's kind of the point I have been trying to make, T.

But you indicate you are not really sure as to what he still believes or not. You are certain, first, that he has left the faith, and secondly, you are certain your definition of "the faith" is correct?

Gasp! That heathen! That infidel!

How many Conservative Evangelical groups practice sprinkling?

You might, or might not, find this interesting:

Baptism Debate with R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur

Smile when you say that...

Oh, you did. Never mind.


God bless.

 

Again, the "argument" in view is a position in a debate.


God bless.

 

Just so you know, I have enjoyed the discussion.


God bless.

 

Did someone suggest it wasn't?

Who was discussing Hank's salvation before you brought it up?

 

Yes...you:

Not, "I am not going to argue it," but, "I am not going to argue at all..."

And we see that has not held true. Because now you are simply arguing. So if you don't mind...go back to your original plan.

I have already shown that, and so far not one person has been honest enough to admit that being "in the faith" is euphemistic for salvation.

"Leaving the faith" is tantamount to apostasy, and the issue with Hank is his doctrinal positions in certain areas, which I have maintained have held error for years, so...

...why the big fuss now?

Because he has left "Conservative Evangelism?" I can't see how he could be considered conservative to begin with.

But since you want to argue, RL, you tell me what you make of this...

Ann would have to define what she means by "leaving the faith," but, in view is the method of "salvation." Salvation is through faith in Christ alone, and those who teach Christ/plus teach another gospel, so the implication is Hank has turned to another gospel.

There seems to be an agreement that Hank has, probably, maybe...left the faith. Now what are most who read this Thread Title going to assume that means? If he has joined a false church, joined false teachers, rejected justification by faith (which is a subject the quote by TCassidy leaves as a singular subject blanket statement which lacks the complexity involved)...

...aren't we talking about apostasy?

You say...

...and in large part that is true, you addressed the OP's statement, rather than the title itself.

But you then try to defend the position that "the Faith" is not speaking of salvation in Christ with the following argument...

I have emphasized the ones I view to be speaking about our walk with the Lord, or, in other words...our salvation.

Let me know if you want to argue about your argument.


God bless.

 

If you don't mind, explain what you meant by Hank "leaving the faith."


God bless.

 

Not sure where this is going--there is the faith that comes by hearing the Word of God (Gospel) which saves the spirit from eternal damnation--the faith which is given by God, it is not of ourselves--all we have is freewill, which is enslaved to our depraved nature. see Ephesians 2:8-10.

Then there is The Faith, once for all delivered to the saints, see Jude 3. This is a Faith and Practice which has been handed down through New Testament Churches since the first. This is the battle ground for scriptural baptism and communion. This F & P was practiced long before the Holy See and Pontifex Maximus and other Constantine converts.

Jude 3 is still in effect. Are we ready?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Bro. James

 

Your misunderstanding of what I wrote does not change what I meant when I wrote it.

Just because you think so -- and even if you are right about the meaning -- does not control what each individual meant when he or she wrote it. I think we can see from Bro. James recent post he must not have meant salvation. TCassidy has said that is not what he meant, as have I. Yeshua1 said he had left the truth of Christianity for a false church and its false teachings, but is still saved, so apparently he wasn't talking about salvation. Dr. Bob spoke of Hank leaving the Faith for error, so that seems to be about doctrine rather than salvation. Perhaps you can poll every one and ask them what they meant and we can let that stand without "arguing" about it any further. For example, as what you have asked Evan:

 

My understanding is justified by you continuing to approach me in an argumentative manner.

If you decide you want to discuss the topic, let me know.

And that is one point I have sought to make, RL...what the Title implies.

Both for the assumption of loss of salvation as well as the assumption that his previous affiliation with "Conservative Evangelicalism" and/or "the full body of the Doctrine of the New Testament" implies salvation was genuine to begin with.

Did you actually read any of my posts?

Thank you for your honesty.

I asked you to comment on his statement. You responded with trying to support the argument that "The Faith" is not euphemistic for salvation itself.

I see a conflict there, and gave TCassidy every opportunity to clarify.

Now you are being given the opportunity.

And I already have said, three times now...I know you were addressing the OP's statement, not the Title, or the implication (for those of us who recognize being "in the faith" as euphemistic for being in Christ, being saved, rather than a Doctrinal Position/s) of the Title.

This is like saying "Frank changed his suit but is still wearing the same clothes" to me.

But, sometimes his posts are open to interpretation.

"The Glory has departed" speaks volumes, and how that is viewed is certainly open to interpretation. Not just mine, but those who read the title.

Israel lost the presence of God, their access to entrance to God...that is a significant event in the life of Israel, who, according to Christ, was in a state of separation/destruction when He appeared (and we know this precedes His Coming).

How would you take it if I said of your ministry and walk with Christ "...the glory has departed."

I think perhaps you would be offended, don't you?

I am not much for polls, though they can be fun, and give an idea of where members are in general, and how an issue might be divided.

Instead, I prefer to do what I have done, which is to simply discuss the issues with the individual's themselves.

I hope the OP will respond, because what he had in mind is an important issue, but, it does not over-ride the implication of the question of the OP. It is just my opinion that when we question the motives or the sincerity of a brother or sister it should be done fairly, and the facts examined, rather than a bunch of "Well, if..." comments. It is actually humorous to me because if we base his "being in the faith" on his doctrine, especially on what is more than likely non-essential issues that do not preclude or demand salvation is present, then again I ask...what about his positions before? Shall I change my view of him because he has...more error?


God bless.

 

I think that the Church he now resides in is in the same state as the RCC, as neither of them teach and uphold the true Gospel of Christ, so he has departed from the faith in the sense of now uphold sound doctrine, so that is why I called him a very conused Christian!

 

That was my take on all of this, as hank would still be saved, but now in a church teaching false doctrines, and he now has departed from not salvation, but the doctrines of the Faith!

 

Yes, I have noticed his conusing on his show.


God bless.