Hank Hanegraaff - Bible or False Teacher?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Commenting on Hanegraaff's book, "Counterfeit Revival", James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research". Other respected Bible teachers with doctoral decrees have described most statements in his book as "ridiculous". These prominent and reliable Bible teachers are far better qualified than Hanegraaff who does not even have have a College Degree, and his research into Revivals lacks depth and the standard of scholarship. This may mean that if his book was presented even as an undergraduate essay, it would not achieve a passing grade from any good non-Charismatic Bible seminary.

So, if Hanegraaff is asserting that modern revivals, including the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Brownsville revivals are counterfeit, and therefore are of the devil; but could actually, through their fruits are proved to be of the Holy Spirit, then could it be possible that when he faces the Lord Jesus Christ in person, he may be found to have committed the unforgivable sin, and that Jesus may say, "Regardless of what you think you have done and said for Me, I never knew you?"

This could start an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of my statement.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Commenting on Hanegraaff's book, "Counterfeit Revival", James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research". Other respected Bible teachers with doctoral decrees have described most statements in his book as "ridiculous". These prominent and reliable Bible teachers are far better qualified than Hanegraaff who does not even have have a College Degree, and his research into Revivals lacks depth and the standard of scholarship. This may mean that if his book was presented even as an undergraduate essay, it would not achieve a passing grade from any good non-Charismatic Bible seminary.

So, if Hanegraaff is asserting that modern revivals, including the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Brownsville revivals are counterfeit, and therefore are of the devil; but could actually, through their fruits are proved to be of the Holy Spirit, then could it be possible that when he faces the Lord Jesus Christ in person, he may be found to have committed the unforgivable sin, and that Jesus may say, "Regardless of what you think you have done and said for Me, I never knew you?"

This could start an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of my statement.

I'm very cautious in saying someone has committed the unpardonable sin (which I don't believe it is possible to do simply in ignorance anyway).

But if you want to ask about the theoretical possibility of someone having committed the unpardonable sin because of assertions made in a book they published at some time in their lives, how can we in general be innocent if we make similar faulty assertions on these forums, or elsewhere? What if we think we know something to be true, and later learn it was false, and so change our thinking? Could we still be liable for "the unpardonable sin" in a similar case, and would Christ claim He never knew us, as a result?

I don't think it's possible for a sincere heart who seeks God to accidentally commit the unpardonable sin. I think one can only become unpardonable by purposely setting oneself against God, and so refusing the forgiveness Christ offers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm very cautious in saying someone has committed the unpardonable sin (which I don't believe it is possible to do simply in ignorance anyway).

But if you want to ask about the theoretical possibility of someone having committed the unpardonable sin because of assertions made in a book they published at some time in their lives, how can we in general be innocent if we make similar faulty assertions on these forums, or elsewhere? What if we think we know something to be true, and later learn it was false, and so change our thinking? Could we still be liable for "the unpardonable sin" in a similar case, and would Christ claim He never knew us, as a result?

I don't think it's possible for a sincere heart who seeks God to accidentally commit the unpardonable sin. I think one can only become unpardonable by purposely setting oneself against God, and so refusing the forgiveness Christ offers.

True. We should be cautious. But if someone says that a movement or a revival is of the devil when he has no substantive proof, and the revival is of the Holy Spirit then he fits into Jesus' definition of what could be the unforgivable sin.

 

[~Anastasia~]

True. We should be cautious. But if someone says that a movement or a revival is of the devil when he has no substantive proof, and the revival is of the Holy Spirit then he fits into Jesus' definition of what could be the unforgivable sin.

It is a thing to be cautious about, no doubt.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to discuss that, or the book (which I haven't read, so can't address), or various revivals, which I do know something about from personal experience - but don't care to speculate much about what Spirit/s were at work in various aspects (which I agree with you is not simplistic). I do tend to be VERY careful in discussing such things, because it's not something to play around with casually. I agree with you there also.

 

[Emli]

I'm not sure that saying that a Christian or a Christian movement that shows signs and wonders is of the devil could ever qualify as the unforgivable sin.

I've seen people use that argument to support what they are doing. For example, one guy was levitating, among other things, saying it was of God, but being completely unable to make any type of Biblical statement, and used the unpardonable sin against others who were trying to help him see truth. Saying they would go to Hell if they said his powers came from Satan. And they were of Satan, as was his words, that much was obvious to everyone. He was exactly the type of false prophet that the Bible describes.

Meanwhile, in the Bible, the Pharisees were attacking Jesus personally, saying that He was of Satan and that the Holy Spirit was a devil. Because the signs and wonders He was doing were proving that He really came from God, because they were according to His Words. The Pharisees didn't like that, because they were living according to their own traditions, and against the true nature of God.

The Word says that signs and wonders will follow, and that we aren't to seek them. They are not the foundation, but the fruit.

I don't believe that we can commit the unpardonable sin just by judging some sign or wonder, because we have to look at what they are teaching.

Just some thoughts...

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Whether this person is saved or not is between him and God. What I do question is whether he is filled with and knows the spirit.

My personal view is that God uses denominations to put people into a church which is right for them. Revelations talks about the 7 churches, that is in my opinion God grouping the churches together as He see's fit to show the characteristics that He wants to encourage and those He wants to warn us about. There are different churches/denominations with different characteristics and it is for God to judge them, not us.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It is a thing to be cautious about, no doubt.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to discuss that, or the book (which I haven't read, so can't address), or various revivals, which I do know something about from personal experience - but don't care to speculate much about what Spirit/s were at work in various aspects (which I agree with you is not simplistic). I do tend to be VERY careful in discussing such things, because it's not something to play around with casually. I agree with you there also.

I am aware that Hank Hanegraaff has converted to Eastern Orthodox and I don't want to offend anyone in that church. This is why I am being sensitive my replies to you.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It is a thing to be cautious about, no doubt.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to discuss that, or the book (which I haven't read, so can't address), or various revivals, which I do know something about from personal experience - but don't care to speculate much about what Spirit/s were at work in various aspects (which I agree with you is not simplistic). I do tend to be VERY careful in discussing such things, because it's not something to play around with casually. I agree with you there also.

As you have no doubt read my assertive debates on the other two threads I started on this forum with ones that opposed my views, you will be aware that I dig in on a position and defend it to the last; like a dog with a bone when someone tries to take it away. I guess I'm waiting for someone to defend our mate Hank's views on the Charismatic and revivals so I can have a bit of fun and yet put another perspective to offset his.

 

[swordsman1]

Commenting on Hanegraaff's book, "Counterfeit Revival", James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research".

James Beverley is a charismatic, regularly contributing to Charisma magazine, so it is hardly surprising to see that he opposes Hanegraf. Beverly wrote a critical review of his book to which Hanegraaf responded here by accusing him of lying and other devious tactics. He also accused Beverly of being paid by the Vineyard church to write anti-Hanegraaf material.

Other respected Bible teachers with doctoral decrees have described most statements in his book as "ridiculous". These prominent and reliable Bible teachers are far better qualified than Hanegraaff who does not even have have a College Degree, and his research into Revivals lacks depth and the standard of scholarship.

Saying one man's argument is better than anothers simply because they hold more qualifications is a logical fallacy. Their work must be judged on its content and the veracity of their arguments.

This may mean that if his book was presented even as an undergraduate essay, it would not achieve a passing grade from any good non-Charismatic Bible seminary.

I don't think his book is meant to be a scholarly piece, but rather aimed at the layman.

So, if Hanegraaff is asserting that modern revivals, including the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Brownsville revivals are counterfeit, and therefore are of the devil; but could actually, through their fruits are proved to be of the Holy Spirit

It depend what you call the fruits of these movements. Their success in evangelism is no guarantee of doctrinal accuracy in their teachings and practices. Many different denominations are successful at bringing people to Christ, yet we can all point out errors in other denomination's doctrines. If you are calling their upright moral behavior the fruit, then I'm afraid the leaders of the charismatic movement are most certainly no better than other denominations in that regard.

 

[swordsman1]

True. We should be cautious. But if someone says that a movement or a revival is of the devil when he has no substantive proof, and the revival is of the Holy Spirit then he fits into Jesus' definition of what could be the unforgivable sin.

You could also say these 'revivals' (Brownsville, Toronto, etc) are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by attributing their bizarre 'manifestations' to Him when they are clearly not of Him.

 

[paul1149]

I don't think we should go to the unforgivable sin charge. If he has sinned, he's still breathing and I would hope can repent. But if the criticisms of Hanagraff are true, he has slandered a movement and has opposed the redemptive and preservational work of the Holy Spirit. God works through people, and no one is perfect. Our job, should the need arise, is to point out the errors without stopping the work of God. Keep the baby, get rid of the bathwater. Sometimes that distinction is a very difficult thing to draw, and takes a lot of God-given wisdom.

This is not the first time Hanagraff has done something like this, as I recall. Maybe 20 years ago he had another book critical of the Charismatic movement. We certainly can use some constructive criticism, but it needs to be in the right spirit.

edit: Thanks to @~Anastasia~ 's post below, I see that the book OP references is actually the book from almost 20 years ago that I was thinking about above.

 

[SkyWriting]

he may be found to have committed the unforgivable sin, and that Jesus may say, "Regardless of what you think you have done and said for Me, I never knew you?"

The only unforgivable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit with intent and permanence.
This builds a wall that inhibits forgiveness from its activity.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Fun to watch Christians tearing each other apart.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am aware that Hank Hanegraaff has converted to Eastern Orthodox and I don't want to offend anyone in that church. This is why I am being sensitive my replies to you.

Thank you for being kind.

However ... wasn't this book written 20 years before he converted to Orthodoxy? So I don't really consider that the two should be lumped together in any discussion. I don't know Hank Hanegraaf personally (but I do know his priest just a little - wonderful man!). But while I always appreciate conversation as befits brothers and sisters in Christ, Hank's conversion and the book are pretty far removed from one another.

As you have no doubt read my assertive debates on the other two threads I started on this forum with ones that opposed my views, you will be aware that I dig in on a position and defend it to the last; like a dog with a bone when someone tries to take it away. I guess I'm waiting for someone to defend our mate Hank's views on the Charismatic and revivals so I can have a bit of fun and yet put another perspective to offset his.

Actually, I don't often have the time on CF to keep up as I would like. If I haven't posted in your other threads, I probably have not seen them. The times I pop into threads other than those in The Ancient Way or Traditional Theology are usually because I see them scrolling in the "new threads" column at a time when I have nothing to do. I'm sure I miss quite a lot.

If you're looking for argumentativeness, then I'm not going to be able to help. I don't always succeed, but it is my overall desire to treat every person on CF with dignity, respect, and an effort to understand them, and never to argue. It's better for my spirit that way.

And I haven't read the book and no time to do so now, so I can't go that route even if I wanted to.

However - I've been to some of the revivals, know quite a lot of the people associated, some very well. I've seen different kinds of "manifestations" and can tell you they fall into different sorts of categories, and have seen fruit, both good and bad. And experienced some angelic intervention, best I can tell. Like I said, I'm not interested in laying the whole thing to the credit of any particular S/sprit/s - but there were complex things going on.

God in His mercy may take even something that has some wrong foundations and use it as a means of active grace for the benefit of people, because He loves, if He wants to. In this very complicated landscape of beliefs we live in, we cannot say that is impossible, and we cannot judge anything as a whole as a result.

On the other hand, IF God begins a thing within a person or within a gathering of persons, you can be sure the enemy will seek to infiltrate and ruin it. If there are not very good defenses in place (and sometimes even if there are) ... he usually succeeds to some degree with some persons, because we are all too easy to tempt with whatever sin so easily besets each of us, and the enemy is very well aware of this.

Not only that, but the persons must be considered as well. There is often a perpetual immaturity in some (some bodies even teach it as a sign of maturity so they never have motive to grow) and along with that comes the very natural excitement of anything judged to be extraordinary and/or of God. The yearning to be involved in what is happening can be so great that people very easily suggest to themselves and so either fall under the effects of something that everyone supposes is happening, or even that they manufacture manifestations themselves, perhaps not even realizing it is their own human spirit at work in their zeal.

And those are just a few possibilities, though the main ones. They can interact on different levels, and it gets complicated quickly. There are subtleties it can be VERY difficult to discern. And anyone who thinks they are perfectly gifted to discern all things - well, such a thing is possible but one who actually has it would probably know better by that point that he could receive such insight that he would know he should NEVER presume upon what is really God's grace nor think himself infallible.

It's difficult to discuss. I can think of a particular manifestation, recall that it was quite strange and not very typical at all of a thing God would do (in fact, the only similar examples in Scripture are from evil spirits or a person losing their mind) ... and I can guess that particular manifestation might likely come from the person's own suggestibility and desire to be part of a "supernatural manifestation" ... to what degree the enemy needs to be involved I have no idea, that's an interaction with the person's own spirit and I know nothing of that. But I can be pretty sure God has not "possessed" the person and caused such behavior.

I'm probably not giving you anything to attack though?

I tend to think of things more in line with "what should I do/think/believe" or at best, what advice I might try my best to offer if someone asks it (if they can't find anyone better to advise them! ), rather than judge for what I can make as a blanket statement about a whole group of people.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with Anastasia, I don't necessarily see it as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to question charismatic practice.

I consider myself somewhat open to the Charismatic movement, having been involved with a few churches that were mildly charismatic (local Episcopalians). My current church is non-charismatic (most Lutherans tend to be) and our pastor is skeptical, not so much because he doubts the power of God but because he believes it is divisive and can involve spiritual pride. I see it a little differently, but I understand his concerns. I do not think evangelical charismatic theology and practice is beyond questioning. It has some positive things but also some questionable theology behind it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Commenting on Hanegraaff's book, "Counterfeit Revival", James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research". Other respected Bible teachers with doctoral decrees have described most statements in his book as "ridiculous". These prominent and reliable Bible teachers are far better qualified than Hanegraaff who does not even have have a College Degree, and his research into Revivals lacks depth and the standard of scholarship. This may mean that if his book was presented even as an undergraduate essay, it would not achieve a passing grade from any good non-Charismatic Bible seminary.

So, if Hanegraaff is asserting that modern revivals, including the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Brownsville revivals are counterfeit, and therefore are of the devil; but could actually, through their fruits are proved to be of the Holy Spirit, then could it be possible that when he faces the Lord Jesus Christ in person, he may be found to have committed the unforgivable sin, and that Jesus may say, "Regardless of what you think you have done and said for Me, I never knew you?"

This could start an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of my statement.

From the fruit, you can see a definite difference between the psychological revivals post Azusa Street, versus the Mind Control Effective area revivals (where people experienced a conviction to sin within a particular geographic area, not confined to a church building) previous to that.

 

[redleghunter]

Commenting on Hanegraaff's book, "Counterfeit Revival", James A. Beverley, professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Toronto, Canada, reviewed Counterfeit Revival in Christianity Today, and wrote that while the book "exposes some real excesses and imbalances in the current charismatic renewal movements", it is a "misleading, simplistic, and harmful book, marred by faulty logic, outdated and limited research". Other respected Bible teachers with doctoral decrees have described most statements in his book as "ridiculous". These prominent and reliable Bible teachers are far better qualified than Hanegraaff who does not even have have a College Degree, and his research into Revivals lacks depth and the standard of scholarship. This may mean that if his book was presented even as an undergraduate essay, it would not achieve a passing grade from any good non-Charismatic Bible seminary.

So, if Hanegraaff is asserting that modern revivals, including the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Brownsville revivals are counterfeit, and therefore are of the devil; but could actually, through their fruits are proved to be of the Holy Spirit, then could it be possible that when he faces the Lord Jesus Christ in person, he may be found to have committed the unforgivable sin, and that Jesus may say, "Regardless of what you think you have done and said for Me, I never knew you?"

This could start an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of my statement.

This is a book from the late 1990s if I remember correctly.

Has he recently opined on the subject leading to your OP? I ask because Hanegraaff converted to Eastern Orthodoxy last Easter (2017).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...nk-hanegraaff-orthodoxy-cri-watchman-nee.html

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is a book from the late 1990s if I remember correctly.

Has he recently opined on the subject leading to your OP? I ask because Hanegraaff converted to Eastern Orthodoxy last Easter (2017).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...nk-hanegraaff-orthodoxy-cri-watchman-nee.html

I acknowledged his conversion in a previous post.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

From the fruit, you can see a definite difference between the psychological revivals post Azusa Street, versus the Mind Control Effective area revivals (where people experienced a conviction to sin within a particular geographic area, not confined to a church building) previous to that.

I don't how on what basis you are describing revivals as "psychological" and "mind control". Anyone who has done comprehensive and honest research, or has actually attended the revival meetings would not have described them that way. What you are implying is some type of "hypnotism" which has been described by some critics, but those who have attended the revivals first hand has labeled that description "absolutely ridiculous". In fact the "fruit" of all these revivals has been a great increase in Bible believing, Jesus loving, stable church members.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree with Anastasia, I don't necessarily see it as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to question charismatic practice.

I consider myself somewhat open to the Charismatic movement, having been involved with a few churches that were mildly charismatic (local Episcopalians). My current church is non-charismatic (most Lutherans tend to be) and our pastor is skeptical, not so much because he doubts the power of God but because he believes it is divisive and can involve spiritual pride. I see it a little differently, but I understand his concerns. I do not think evangelical charismatic theology and practice is beyond questioning. It has some positive things but also some questionable theology behind it.

I agree that just asking questions about the Charismatic movement is not the unforgivable sin, but making definite statements that it is of the devil could be.

There is nothing wrong with Charismatic theology. Most Pentecostal and Charismatic churches abide by the Westminster Confession of Faith, with the addition that they believe that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today. The problems in the movement are not the manifestations that are similar to other revivals, like falling down with conviction of sin, and through the power of the Spirit, shaking, speaking in tongues, prophecy, which are characteristics of all revivals, even before the Charismatic movement happened. The problems are the excesses from the lunatic fringe which has also happened in every revival, right from the dawn of Church history. Paul corrected excesses in the Corinthian church, but he didn't accuse the whole church of being of the devil or counterfeit that if Hanegraaff was living at the time, would.