Home > Hank Hanegraaff > Hank Hanegraaff: An Extremely Arrogant, Deceiving, Blasphemer and Credit Thief

Hank Hanegraaff: An Extremely Arrogant, Deceiving, Blasphemer and Credit Thief

Hank Hanegraaff has identified himself as an Arminian by various statements such as the one below made on February, 4, 2000:

God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces his love on people, nor is he a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love him. Instead God grants us the freedom of choice.

The above statement however is logically warped since love is not a thing which is forced, but rather a feeling towards someone. It’s also universally agreed as morally fallacious by everyone but warped person’s like Hank, since a parent isn’t considered to be a rapist for loving anyone in their family such as a baby, who didn’t ask for it for that love, or when their child is angry at the parent and doesn’t want the love of the parent. Who in the world would refer to a parent as hateful or a rapist for giving their child love when the child doesn’t want that love? No one except an insane, extremely evil person, or morally ignorant person.

Also, Hank is incorrectly equating hating God (as all Arminiests seem believe at times) as also necessarily rejecting God’s salvation. For example a child hating is parent would not necessarily also be rejecting the safety that parent provides him with. Hank, no one, has any evidence that to hate God nullifies his love. In fact Scripture says:

“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” – Ephesians 4:30

“if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.” – 2 Timothy 2:13.

So, if God disowned a person he forgave because they lost faith that he saved them, then he  would also be disowning his Spirit which he permanently sealed within them, and the Spirit of God is one of the three persons that makes up who God is.

Furthermore, God himself commands Christians to love everyone whether they want it or not:

“Love your neighbor as yourself” and that is the second greatest command according to Jesus, and that includes Christians having to “love your enemies,” as Jesus said, and enemies don’t want the God-compliant love that comes from God-loving Christians.

On top of that where does the Bible teach that anyone who has been given eternal life can lose it? By definition eternal life is eternal, not temporary, and the Bible makes it clear that with eternal life comes an eternity of peace living with God, not an eternity of forever being fallible.

On top of that where does the Bible teach that God doesn’t oppose the decisions of men let alone that he has no right to? The Bible does not teach that what man wants is to be done over what God wants. There is no law over God saying, “God, thou shalt obey man and do as he says over what you want.” It is blasphemy to teach that God has no right to do what he wants over the decisions of his creatures, let alone to call him a rapist for it, as Hank said, using his typical “wiser than thou because I’m being eloquent and using unfamiliar words”. That being true, it is then wrong for Hank to teach (and which Arminiests teach) that if man does not first choose to love / accept God’s love, and God gives it anyways, that God has then committed a crime by violating man’s will.

Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God, upon loving a man or woman who hates him, enables them to love him and that he directs their heart and mind to love him back without controlling their will:

“May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:5

“The king’s heart is in the hand of Yahweh; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” – Proverbs 21:1

“In his mind a man plans his course, but Yahweh determines his steps.” – Proverbs 16:9

Furthermore the Bible the Bible teaches that no one will love God until God firsts loves them because the moment a person sins, they are addicted to disobeying God so much so that they cannot love him with being healed / freed:

“Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.'” – John 8:34

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” – Mark 2:17

“he had healed many… Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’… no one can enter [Satan’s] house and carry off his possessions unless he first binds [Satan]. Then he can rob his house.” – Mark 3:10-11,26

Now, did God oppose the will of the demons who had taken control of the hearts and minds of those they possessed, possessed people who hated Jesus and had virtually become one with their demons? Yes. Did that make Jesus a rapist of those demons or the people he freed them from? Obviously not.

Hank the Mean. Swindling, Plagiarist

Various staff of CRI, an organization that Hank is currently the president of, who worked under it’s former president Walter Martin, have quit CRI due to Hank’s bad manners and wronful use of CRI’s funds and his blatant plagiarism of some books. In 1994 about 30 former staff members of CRI formed a group named the Group for CRI Accountability based on the Bible, specifically Matthew 18. The group tried to meet with Hank but he refused to meet with them, and instead had his lawyer send them threatening letters. The group accused him of misuse of funds and plagiarism in his books.

In the mid 1990s a wrongful dismissal law suit by an ex-CRI staff worker was settled out of court. More recently the Evangelical periodical Christianity Today has carried news items concerning allegations about CRI’s financial management, and of a looming law suit against a Christian critic of the ministry. At least one accountant at CRI attempted to confront Hanegraaff, alleging repeated wrongful use of ministry funds for personal use. Hanegraaff again refused to meet with his accusers, but terminated the accountant. The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability temporarily removed CRI from their approved list, but later, after CRI promised to clean up their act, reinstated CRI without public comment.

Martin’s widow, Darlene Nesland Martin, and eldest daughter Jill Martin-Rische have made public calls for Hanegraaff’s removal from CRI. Martin’s daughter and son-in-law run a ministry that perpetuates Martin’s ministry known as Walter Martin’s Religious Information Network. The public nature of this dispute between Hanegraaff and Martin’s family was reported in April 2000 in the Los Angeles Times (see the “Other Relevant Sources” section), and is evidenced by the fact that in 1997 Hanegraaff was general editor of a posthumous edition of Martin’s book, The Kingdom of the Cults. However, in 2003 an entirely different edition of the book was released that had Ravi Zacharias as general editor with editorial supervision from Jill Martin-Rische.

Hanegraaff has many detractors who cite the unauthorized takeover of the presidency of CRI and a decided change in the direction of the ministry. Others challenge his ethics of citing old quotes out of context to brand other ministers as heretical, even when the quotes have since been retracted and the ministers have changed their views.

In March, 2007, a defamation suit filed by Hank Hanegraaff against aChristian apologist named Bill Alnor was dismissed from the court which judged the suit.

Here is a table showing a examples of how Hank copied a written work called Evangelism Explosion by D. James Kennedy:

Evangelism Explosion vs. Personal Witness Training

EVANGELISM EXPLOSION
by D. James Kennedy
PERSONAL WITNESS TRAINING
by Hank Hanegraaff
Kennedy goes on visitation to the home of someone who visited his church; he introduces himself, gives his church name, and introduces his two companions, a woman and a man (EE, 24). Hank goes on visitation to the home of someone who visited his church; he introduces himself and his two companions (a woman and a man), and gives his church name (PWT, 3).
Kennedy breaks the ice by noticing a painting (24). “We will… search the room for some indication of his interest. A… painting… trophies…” (51). “As we enter and are seated, we look for items of interest, perhaps a portrait, trophy, or an award.” (3)
“How did you happen to attend our church?” (25). “Earl, how did you happen to visit our church?” (4)
“How did you like the service?” (25) “How did you enjoy the service?” (52) “How did you enjoy the service?” (4)
“The people seemed so friendly and made us feel at home. The singing is just wonderful.” (25) “The music was terrific and the people made us feel really welcome.” (4)
“You know, many people have mentioned to me that they sense something different about our church….” (26) “Perhaps the reason you noticed something special about the service and the people at our church….” (4)
“Testimony” C either of the church, or a personal testimony (26). “Testimony” C a personal testimony (4).
“They have hopes but they don’t know for sure that they would go to heaven…. How about you, Mrs. Tucker?” (26) “…my relationship with God makes me sure that… I will live with Him in heaven forever. How about you Earl….” (4)
“Have you come to a place in your spiritual life where you know for certain that if you were to die today you would go to heaven?” (26) “Does your relationship with God make you sure you will go to heaven when you die?” (5)
“Why, I don’t think anyone can really know.” (26) “Not really. I didn’t think anyone could be sure of that.” (5)
“I even learned that that was the reason the Bible was written… ‘that ye may know that ye have eternal life'” (26). “That is precisely why the Bible was written. It was written so we would know how to… be sure that we will live with Him forever when we die” (5).
“Would you like for me to share with you how I made that discovery and how you can know it too?” “Yes, please do.” (27) “May I share with you how I came to have this assurance and how you can have it as well?” “Please do.” (5)
“Before I get into it, let me ask you another question….” (27) “Before I do that, I’d like to get your insight on one more question if I may.” (5)
“Suppose that you were to die tonight and stand before God and he were to say to you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ What would you say?” (27) “I would be interested in what you think the entrance requirements for anyone to get into heaven are.” (59) “What would you say God’s requirements are for you to get into heaven?” (5)
“And I try to be as good as I know how.” (27) “…I’ve tried to keep the Ten Commandments” (18). “Well, I suppose it takes living a good life, being a good person, helping those in need, keeping the ten commandments…” (5).

D. James Kennedy, after finding out about Hank’s plagiarism, wrote a loving response. Hank however, in typical Arminian fashion, sent D.J. Kennedy a hateful response.

There is more evidence of Hank’s plagiarism at http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html.

References:

http://www.answers.org/newsletters/hankresp.html
http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c174ab.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/515-hank-hanegraaff-lawsuit-thrown-out-of-court
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h13a02.html
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17614/hank-hanegraaff-bill-alnor
http://en.allexperts.com/e/h/ha/hank_hanegraaff.htm

If any of you ware wondering if Hank is a narcissist, I don’t think so, because I haven’t read or heard or seen any indication of immaturity.

Advertisements
  1. Gary Fletcher
    October 25, 2010 at 7:38 PM

    Hank Hanegraaff has said basically that it would be very wrong for GOD to punish someone that he gave free will to if they were acting on it.That would be fine providing that excluded sin. To make a pat statement about this is to call GOD A LIAR!! If what he says is true then CHRIST died for nothing! If there are no consequences for a wrong freewill choice then everyone will go to heaven using his reasoning. He contradicts himself in this reasoning when he critisizes the unitarians for the same belief. He likes to talk about common sence but he will not apply it to his own life.WHAT HYPOCRISY!! Every thing that we do is a freewill choice(and even if somebody took us by force) we could resist them or not(regardless of success or failure). CHRIST made a freewill choice to die for our sins.GOD decide that he would show his love by sending his son to die for our sins.GOD FORBID THAT HE SHOULD FORCE HIS LOVE ON ME! GIVE ME A BREAK MR HANEGRAAFF! THERE IS NO SORROW IN HEAVENLY PLACES WHATSOEVER!

    • October 25, 2010 at 11:25 PM

      Not sure what you mean by “everything we do is a free will choice”. Our will must be free for us to be responsible for our actions etc., but the Bible clear says that God, boxes in our choices in various ways, so that the choice we make is what he wanted/willed. There are two proverbs in Proverbs that show that. And when it comes to saving a person, the Bible says in John that God draws us to Him.

      • Gary
        April 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM

        Unless you are forced to do something ,Everything that you do is based on a desision that you make. (except for breathing and body function).What are you talking about. We are responsible because WE DO HAVE FREE WILL. It will not be given to us because we already have it. You lie when you say that the bible says anything about God boxing in our choises. It’s about sinning or not sinning. You are clearly not very knowlegeble of the scriptures.

      • April 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM

        Unless you are forced to do something ,Everything that you do is based on a desision that you make.

        You didn’t even spell desision right and you’re telling me it’s clear to you I don’t know scripture, moron? How can a lazy idiot like that, who spells a key word he’s talking about in relation to free will be my teacher, let alone on that subject you oblivious arrogant petty moron? You clearly are an arrogant hypocrite who is careless with his speech.

        “(except for breathing and body function).”

        No idiot you can control that with your will, you’re telling me idiot you’ve never held your breath, you’re clearly stupid.

        “What are you talking about.”

        What are you talking about moron who didn’t end that sentence with a question mark? You can’t control your body functions? So you pee without being able to control it? You poop everywhere without control? Wow.

        “We are responsible because WE DO HAVE FREE WILL.”

        Idiot, once again idiot: God is sovereign, he is the one that said, “The heart of the king is in the hand of Yahweh, he directs it wherever he pleases”. He is the one that said “there is none good, there is none that understand” the one who said, “John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,”

        The rest of your ignorant babble was unread. “Avoid arguments of ignorance” Paul. Next time don’t be quick to judge. “Pride comes before a fall.”

  2. April 2, 2012 at 5:14 AM

    You may want to pick up a copy of my book “Hard Questions for the Bible Answer Man“. It is an extremely harsh critique of Hanegraaff. I am also reasonably sure it is the only book length treatment of HH to date. If you have any questions you can write me at jayhoward1@frontier.com

    • April 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

      harsh in what way? I linked your comment to Amazon.com

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: