Has Hank Hanagraaf left the faith?

[Darrell C]

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!

So the logical conclusion is that those in a church that...

is in the same state as the RCC,

...can still be saved, so...

...what's the big deal?

I guess it is not a matter of being in the right group, or holding to the "full body of Biblical Doctrine," right?

Thanks for clearing that up, Yeshua. Its good to know you believe Catholics can be saved.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I listen to him when I can between jobs and on the way home, and he has publicly made it clear he has not left the faith.

I like to listen to Hank because I just love Bible questions, and it gives me a chance to compare his answers with how I would answer. I have actually called him but he will not let someone speak much if they are not adoring, lol. Called him about Regeneration and his response (after he hung up on me) was pretty outrageous.

However, it seems pretty apparent that Hank is a sincere believer, so I give him credit for his efforts. I don't usually equate Doctrinal Error with no possibility that one is saved. He has, for years, been wrong on a number of issues, lol.


God bless.

None of us are now seeing him as being lost again, but think that we all see him now being part of a church that denies the true Gospel! So His church departed from the Faith....

 

[Yeshua1]

So the logical conclusion is that those in a church that...





...can still be saved, so...

what's the big deal?

I guess it is not a matter of being in the right group, or holding to the "full body of Biblical Doctrine," right?

Thanks for clearing that up, Yeshua. Its good to know you believe Catholics can be saved.


God bless.

The point is why should Hank go to another church that does not uphold the true Gospel of Christ?

 

[Darrell C]

None of us are now seeing him as being lost again, but think that we all see him now being part of a church that denies the true Gospel! So His church departed from the Faith....

So "the Faith" is whatever group is approved by you and your friends?

The point is why should Hank go to another church that does not uphold the true Gospel of Christ?

No, the point is that he moved to a church which in your words is "in the same state as the Catholic Church," and you view him as being saved, or "still saved," or not "lost again," whatever that is supposed to mean, and the obvious conclusion we can draw is that you can now stop making derisive remarks about the Catholic Church since one can, in your view, go to a false church which teaches false doctrine...

...and still be saved.

The assumptions involved in this are both humorous as well as sad.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

So "the Faith" is whatever group is approved by you and your friends?




No, the point is that he moved to a church which in your words is "in the same state as the Catholic Church," and you view him as being saved, or "still saved," or not "lost again," whatever that is supposed to mean, and the obvious conclusion we can draw is that you can now stop making derisive remarks about the Catholic Church since one can, in your view, go to a false church which teaches false doctrine...

...and still be saved.

The assumptions involved in this are both humorous as well as sad.


God bless.

The Faith is what the NT defined it to be, mainly the real Gospel of Christ, and the RCC fails that test!
And pointing out that they are Apostste is just stating the truth, see Council of Trent!

 

[Darrell C]

The Faith is what the NT defined it to be, mainly the real Gospel of Christ, and the RCC fails that test!
And pointing out that they are Apostste is just stating the truth, see Council of Trent!

I have asked you twice, present your own Gospel presentation, that I might examine it.

Let's see how you do on this test.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have asked you twice, present your own Gospel presentation, that I might examine it.

Let's see how you do on this test.


God bless.

I am a sinner, who has already been judged by God to be guilty in the Fall of Adam, and unless I can keep perfectly the Law same way Jesus did, I will stay lost!
God knowing that none can be justified by the way of law keeping, so He sent His Son, who came toi earth as Jesus , and who died in my stead at the Cross, and God accepted that Jesus paid my sin debt owned him in full, and he accepted that by raising Jesus back from the dead...

I believed that Jesus took in full all of my sins at the Cross, and that God raised Him from the dead.

The Holy Spirit Himself showed me that I was a sinner, no means to save myself, and he enabled me to see and believe unto Jesus to get saved.

Nothing in there about what I had to do, but all what God did do!

 

[Darrell C]

I am a sinner, who has already been judged by God to be guilty in the Fall of Adam, and unless I can keep perfectly the Law same way Jesus did, I will stay lost!
God knowing that none can be justified by the way of law keeping, so He sent His Son, who came toi earth as Jesus , and who died in my stead at the Cross, and God accepted that Jesus paid my sin debt owned him in full, and he accepted that by raising Jesus back from the dead...

I believed that Jesus took in full all of my sins at the Cross, and that God raised Him from the dead.

The Holy Spirit Himself showed me that I was a sinner, no means to save myself, and he enabled me to see and believe unto Jesus to get saved.

Nothing in there about what I had to do, but all what God did do!

Not bad, in large part, but...

And you knew that was coming.

Here are a few items in your Gospel presentation I would take issue with:

I am a sinner, who has already been judged by God to be guilty in the Fall of Adam,

Could you show me that in Scripture?

Truly it is Adam's sin and the Fall which is the reason for your sin, but, your sin is your sin, and Adam's sin is his sin.

In other words, you are judged guilty because of the sin you have committed, not for the sin Adam committed.

You were born condemned because you were born separated from God. And it is only Christ dying in your place, not Adam's, which accounts for your sin being atoned and you being reconciled to God.

God knowing that none can be justified by the way of law keeping,

Everyone could be justified by keeping the Law...if they could do it.

So better to make that clear.

Galatians 3:21
King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

who came toi earth as Jesus ,

Actually, the Son of God "came to earth," and took up residence in a body that had never been to Heaven.

I believed that Jesus took in full all of my sins at the Cross,

Whereas I could argue that Jesus died for your sin, rather than "He took it in full" upon Himself. I do not take a view that "spiritually my sin, or yours, was placed on Christ. The demand of the penalty of sin is death, and He, completely innocent of sin, died in our place, a lamb without spot or wrinkle.




God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not bad, in large part, but...

And you knew that was coming.

Here are a few items in your Gospel presentation I would take issue with:




Could you show me that in Scripture?

Truly it is Adam's sin and the Fall which is the reason for your sin, but, your sin is your sin, and Adam's sin is his sin.

In other words, you are judged guilty because of the sin you have committed, not for the sin Adam committed.

You were born condemned because you were born separated from God. And it is only Christ dying in your place, not Adam's, which accounts for your sin being atoned and you being reconciled to God.

Paul told us though that all died in Adam due to Him failing the test and falling, but all saved now alive in Christ, who as second adam kept the Law and did what our first Head failed to do!

Everyone could be justified by keeping the Law...if they could do it.

So better to make that clear.

Paul disagrees, as he stated that NO flesh shall be able to get justified by keeping the law

Galatians 3:21
King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.




Actually, the Son of God "came to earth," and took up residence in a body that had never been to Heaven.

God the Son became Jesus at theconception

Whereas I could argue that Jesus died for your sin, rather than "He took it in full" upon Himself. I do not take a view that "spiritually my sin, or yours, was placed on Christ. The demand of the penalty of sin is death, and He, completely innocent of sin, died in our place, a lamb without spot or wrinkle.

Penal substitutionary Death of the heart of the Gospel though

God bless.

Amen!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

He recently joined the Greek Orthodox Church. But as far as I can tell he still holds the essentials of the faith and is a strong brother in the Lord. I do not know much about the Orthodox Church nor have I recalled mailing one of their churches in Denver a letter. I only write up false churches needing to hear the gospel. Or am I deceived? Is the Greek Orthodox Church sound? When I mean sound do they affirm the essentials of the faith? They are not Baptist and probably use alcoholic wine in communion and do lots of things that make Baptist angry no doubt.

Alcohol is the least of the EO's problems.

The EO, like Catholicism, say they believe in "salvation by grace" but what they really mean by that is that they believe that grace opens the door to salvation, which must be earned by a lifetime of salvific works.

I don't see how Hannegraaf can claim to affirm the doctrines of the EO, and according to portions of the Bible Answer Man (which he stole from Walter Martin, but I digress) played on James White's show, he is now vigorously defending EO doctrine, and still be consistent with the Christian faith.

Hannegraff has always been a Preterist and an Arminian, which have always been troubling, but if this move to the EO is not just a season of confusion, then I think it's time to seriously consider him an apostate.

 

[evangelist6589]

Alcohol is the least of the EO's problems.

The EO, like Catholicism, say they believe in "salvation by grace" but what they really mean by that is that they believe that grace opens the door to salvation, which must be earned by a lifetime of salvific works.

I don't see how Hannegraaf can claim to affirm the doctrines of the EO, and according to portions of the Bible Answer Man (which he stole from Walter Martin, but I digress) played on James White's show, he is now vigorously defending EO doctrine, and still be consistent with the Christian faith.

Hannegraff has always been a Preterist and an Arminian, which have always been troubling, but if this move to the EO is not just a season of confusion, then I think it's time to seriously consider him an apostate.

Holding to partial preterism does not make one a heretic as plenty of Reformed are also partial preterists. I think Hanks view of the earth being old is more troubling than his eschatology.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Holding to partial preterism does not make one a heretic as plenty of Reformed are also partial preterists. I think Hanks view of the earth being old is more troubling than his eschatology.

I didn't say it made him a heretic. I just said it's troubling.

 

[Darrell C]

Hannegraff has always been a Preterist and an Arminian,

I always got the impression that he tried to present both an Arminian view as well as still try to give an impression he embraced Eternal Security.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with someone calling him an heretic. I would suggest that several of his positions are no less than heretical.


God bless.

 

[evangelist6589]

I always got the impression that he tried to present both an Arminian view as well as still try to give an impression he embraced Eternal Security.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with someone calling him an heretic. I would suggest that several of his positions are no less than heretical.


God bless.

Like which ones? Hank holds to the essentials of the faith.

 

[Darrell C]

Like which ones? Hank holds to the essentials of the faith.

Partial Preterism, for one. While many find this an acceptable system of belief, I view it as one of the worst positions one can embrace. I take the same view of A-Millennialism. Both teach that Prophecy is unreliable. We will never get them to admit that, but if God can provide Prophecy, then void it, it mars the perception of the faithfulness of GOd.

Another would be his embrace of not just an extended history of the universe...but a hugely extended history, which in my view also contradicts the Word of God and supports Evolution as well as Theistic Evolution.

Another would be his view of the Ministry of the Comforter, a subject I have spoken to him about personally. He views, as most do, that the coming of the Comforter was for the purpose of empowerment. The fact is that the Spirit of God...has always empowered men.

Those are not "Essentials of the Faith," and in my view antithetical to Faith in God and His Holy Word.

That doesn't mean I do not believe he is saved, I do. That I think he should find another profession, something other than Bible Answer Man, is a given.

And I think my local station actually took him off the air. I have mixed feelings about that, because as I have said from the beginning of this discussion, why is "his error" now any different from his error before? I like any kind of Q & A, so sorry to see him go, and sorrier still not to have new categories to pose questions to him about,. lol.


God bless.