| Author | Message | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
I was just listening to an internet broadcast of the Bible Answer Man (Hank Hannegraf) that was played on 11/27. A guy called up and said he had been memorizing Romans and got to the section that says, "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." Romans 7:4 (NASB) The caller stated he is really struggling with this verse as it has made him question his Seventh-day Adventistism. I was sooooooo disappointed when Hank's response was that while the ceremonial portions of the law had been fulfilled the moral portions of the law are still the standard for our conduct. He added some other rather vague language about being saved by grace as opposed to leagalism, but overall he reaffirmed the law as the standard we live by. He didn't even engage the actual text that the caller presented. He didn't attempt any discussion of the context in which the text appears (a wife is bound to her husband only so long as the husband lives, once her husband dies she is free to marry another, therefore we must die to the law to live to Christ). The caller was obviously relieved that he could re-interpret this text in a way that would reaffirm what he had been taught in Adventism. What a wasted opportunity!!! It makes me angery at Hannegraf who should know better as a supposed cult-watcher and apologist for the historic Christian faith. I pray that this text, and others in the book of Romans will continue to burn in the caller's mind. I pray the Holy Spirit will continue to make the great truths of Romans known to him in a way that will lead him out of Adventism and into the New Covenant. I know God can do this despite the misunderstandings of so many Christians. Chris | ||
| Melissa (Melissa) |
I share your frustration with Hank and actually stopped listening to him because of his mild stance on adventism overall. Now, one time a caller had called in to ask how to deal with an sda that he worked with, and his comments were to tell him to read the scripture without EGWs interpretations, but overall, they were pretty benign. I had started listening when a friend a few years earlier had said that Hannegraf had actually told someone to avoid adventism, and I wanted to find out the specifics. I even called in once to find out his position on the Sabbath and he merely said, well we keep the cycle of the commandment, gathering every 7 days. Well, I knew that would be worthless as an explanation to an SDA. But he is also the editor of Walter Martin's book on cults which is rather gentle on Adventism in my opinion (calls it a sect and not a cult). It was the first book I found any sort of extensive writing on the religion and while they discount their distinctive doctrines, they said their services were very similar to those of other mainstream churches. Later, as I came to understand more of the teachings, I felt I had been lead astray because I trusted the book put out by such reputable men. I felt I could have saved myself a lot of trouble had I gotten a more accurate explanation. I have heard another SDA caller, though, and he challenged him about giving money to a religion they no longer believe in (one guy didn't believe EGW was a prophet and was wondering if he should still give his tithes there). So, I don't know if he has changed his position on Adventism or is just trying to keep adventist listeners to give them a clear view of the gospel. But I have seen him many times dismiss the particular text someone is questioning and talk about principles without scriptural texts. I have several of his books and think he's got some great insight in some areas, but I think people like him set people up to be more susceptible to adventism ... and 'why don't you keep the sabbath' issue. | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
I was told that he (Hank H.)made the comment that God was not some "cosmic rapist". What he meant by that I do not know but it really bothered me he would even put rapist and God in the same sentance. I will go back and look and see if I can find exactly what he meant by that statement. Chris, I think you should pull up his website and send him your thoughts. I don't think he realizes what he is up against with SDAism. You know, there is a lot of controversy surrounding him being Walter Martin's successor. Walter's wife claims this was never intended to happen, he just took it over. I have read about it on the web...I think there was a lawsuit involved. We all know Walter Martin trusted the SDA's he met up with and was duped. He later pretty much said so. However, I don't think he ever officially retracted their non-cult status. I am really discouraged today. On the other forum I post on, there is a man who at first posted straight Gospel...but his wife is SDA and he has been attending the SDA church and I have noted that over the last few weeks he is starting to sound more and more like the SDA's...using their "catch phrases" etc. and now he is promoting commandment keeping. He is accusing me of not wanting to obey the commandments. I am very disheartened by him. Maybe I need to go re-read Romans! | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
I haven't heard Hannegraf use the term "cosmic rapist", but if he did I would guess it was in reference to the "I" in the Calvinistic TULIP (Irresistible Grace). From *his* point of view, if God sovereignly decides to regenerate an unwilling person (i.e. without that person's consent or choice - hence the term "irrestistible"), then that person's free-will has been violated becasue they do not have the ability to choose or choose otherwise. Notice I said, "from *his* point of view" becasue I'm not well versed enough in this topic to fully engage the old Calvinism vs. arminianism debate. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Pheekie, Hank Hanegraf has been told the "secrets" of Adventism, but he has chosen, for some reason, to ignore them. About five years ago he had Mark Martin on his program, and Mark talked clearly about Adventism. Hank even said he was planning to do a series of programs on Adventism, but that plan never materialized. Since that time Hank has said he has questioned several hundred SDA theologians and administrators, and he holds to his position that the church is heterodoxical but Christian. Many formers have talked to him, given him materials, etc., but for some reason he has come down on the side of listening to those inside instead of those no longer inside. A few months ago I saw an article from the online Christianity Today re: Hanegraaf and his organization. A former employee had reported him for mismanaging funds, and he and his organization had to clean up some embarrassing misuses of their money. It turns out his wife had been receiving a sizable salary for her supportive work for the organization, and Hank himself had a fairly new high-end car purchased with company funds, among other things. He apologized and apparently agreed to clean up the uncovered messes. I don't remember the exact source of this article, but I'm quite certain it was Christianity Today, and I know it was an online article. I don't remember the month. I'm so thankful that God embodies truth, and we can't fall outside of his sovereign will. BTW, Chris, I agree with your assessment above. I feel the same way about the ageless Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I'm quite persuaded that both predestination and free will are true. It's a paradox we can't understand inside of time, but both ideas are taught in Scripture. In my mind it falls into the same paradoxical category of the facts that God is transcendent (above and beyond ALL else), and immanent (residing inside my particular heart), and that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, not 50-50. Praise God for reality--which is 'WAY bigger than we can see! Colleen | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
If anyone finds an opportunity to communciate with Hank Hanegraff, simply write a regular letter (USPS). Several months ago, I sent an email to his organization. They informed me that they will not communicate by email on doctrinal matters. So, please send a regular letter when trying to reach him. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Colleen, I tend to agree that predestination and free will is a paradox (i.e. NOT a contradiction, but only an *apparent* contradiction that CAN be resolved if seen from the proper perspective). However, I'm not convinced that we as finite beings will ever be able to fully comprehend this paradox. To fully comprehend such a paradox would require a perspective that is infinite and that transcends our dimensions of space and time. There are aspects at both of ends of the philosophical scale (Arminianism and Calvinism) that I have some issues with. Therefore I find myself affirming that we are genuinely morally culpable for our actions and are also chosen and predestined before the foundation of the world. How both things can be true, I don't know, but the Bible teaches both so I believe it. If anyone has an interest in reading more on the subject I would recommend the following books. All are well written and very accessible at the lay level: Essentials of the Christian Faith - RC Sproul (Calvinist/Reformed - deals with many other topics, but does a nice job of defining each of the five points of the tulip in a very succinct understandable way). Chosen By God - RC Sproul (Calvinist/Reformed - Very compelling logical presentation of the reformed view) Chosen But Free - Norman Geisler (Self-labeled "moderate-Calvinist", but most Calvinist would consider this position to be a form of Arminianism - written partly in response to Sproul's "Chosen by God") The Potter's Freedom - James R. White (Calvinist/Reformed - this book is a direct reply to Geisler's "Chosen But Free"). Systematic Theology - Wayne Grudem (Calvinist/Reformed/Charismatic) Bible Doctrine - Wayne Grudem (Calvinist/Reformed/Charismatic - this is a greatly condensed version of Grudem's magnum opus "Systematic Theology") Beyond the Cosmos - Hugh Ross (Moderate, similar to the Geisler position, but from a scientific perspective - deals with many topics including the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate. The main thrust is to show how many theological paradoxes might be resolved if we understand that God is beyond our dimensions of space and time and can actually work in more dimensions than we can physically perceive. Touches on quantum physics and theoretical mathematics, but in a very light understandable way.) | ||
| Melissa (Melissa) |
Amen Chris! I don't know why people have to view one teaching in scripture, while ignoring the other, bantering scripture back and forth while ignoring that the other says what it says. Why do we humans think we are really capable of comprehending the mind of God? That is one of my irritations with Adventism (though I'm sure it is not unique there) in the arrogance that thinks they've got God all figured out ... and the so-called blueprint for how to live. The proverb that we need to be careful of where we stand lest we fall has great wisdom for those willing to consider themselves fallible before an infallible God. I do not think God is nearly concerned with our detailed level of understanding as the depth of our relationship with him. In time, as we have need, God will reveal to us what we need to know to do the things he wants us to do. Other times, he just tells us what to do, no understanding involved. That is faith, afterall. | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
Since we've strayed into the fascinating topic of predestination, I'm curious if anyone here has studied "Middle Knowledge" (also sometimes referred to as "Molinism") much. I find this concept to be a fascinating possibility that could potentially provide a framework for understanding free-will and predestination. Is anyone well versed in this concept or ever read anything by William Lane Craig? Chris | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Yes, I think Dr. R. C. Sproul covers this topic very well in several books as listed above. His book, CHOSEN BY GOD, should be required reading for every Adventist. The doctrine of our eternal security in Christ really upsets Adventists--probably more than any other topic. Being they cannot have any assurance in Christ as Adventists, they are most determined to undermine the Christian faith in others. Satan does not like the doctrine of our eternal security in Christ. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
SPECIAL DAY This is my 58th birthday. Old age is not for sissies. I will not engage in an "organ recital" (smile). Oh well, every age has its blessings. I am most grateful to have found a relationship with Jesus Christ and a wonderful church family. In awe of His grace, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DENNIS!!! Chris | ||
| Clay (Clay) |
I have not posted for several months but I got on today and read with interest the comments re Hank Hanegraf. I have listened to the "Bible Answer Man" on the radio every day this summer as I drove(my work involved lots of driving) and sometimes I was very upset at his response to people. I heard his take on Adventism several times and finally wrote him a long letter letting him know what Adventism really teaches in their crusades. He has not responded as yet and probably will not. I beleive his argument regarding the Sabbath is so very weak because he does not understand the New Covenant. He also knows he cannot support from the bible his reason for holding on to the law as our guide for living and yet disregard the 4th commandment which is Saturday. How do you tell someone that the law of Moses is still our guide for living and then say we have choosen to ignore one of those laws and choose another day to worship on because we think there were more significant things happen on that day. I suspect that he may have an Adventist friend or two and may not be willing to openly tell the truth about Adventism. I could be wrong of course. Hank puts himself in a very dangerous position I feel, by assuming he is "THE BIBLE ANSWER MAN". In all the times I listened to him, I never heard him admit he did not know the answer to a question and when someone did not agree with his answer, he would often cut the person down verbably and walk all over them. I believe he has some lessons to learn about humility. Colleen, I really appreciated the article you wrote in the last issue of 'Proclamation' entitled "Until heaven and earth disappear". I agree that the 'law' still exists as a 'schoolmaster', and is important only to show unbelievers their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. When they come to faith in Christ , they are no longer under the curse of the law nor under the law as their guide to living but rather they are now under the conviction of the Holy Spirit in all matters of life. Walking in the "Spirit" is so much more all-inclusive in every aspect of our life and goes so far beyond 10 rules. Blessings to all. Clay | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Happy Birthday, Dennis!! I hope you do something you really enjoy and that you have some relaxing hours just to bask in the awesome gifts of life and eternity. It's good to hear from you, Clay. Chris, I haven't read much about Molinism, but what I have read (including a little bit by William Lane Craig) has left me slightly frustrated. First, the arguments I've read sound reasonably plausible--God knows before we act what we will or might do, and he does what he knows we need. Also, Without grace we cannot come to God, but without an assent of our wills, we also cannot come to God; therefore, the "first cause" of our salvation is grace; the "second cause" is the "yes" of our wills. My frustration comes from the feeling I have that I am reading philosophy instead of experiencing reality. I'm not saying Molinism is not expressing reality, but whenever we try to explain how God's sovereign power and his will work, we reduce him to something we can grasp with our minds. Please don't misunderstand me; I absolutely appreciate philosophy, education, and scholarship. I personally want all my facts lined up before I decide I believe something. I just know that reading about Molinism leaves me feeling like I've read the product of some very bright minds, but when I read the Bible and study what it says about predestination and also about our freedom to choose, it seems that the issues look even bigger and less explainable than they do when I read the philosophical arguments regarding the subjects. I do think it's interesting and instructive to read what theologians and scholars say about these things, but sometimes, as in this case, I find them to be more limiting than liberating. I'm not saying I disagree with Molinism; I just feel like it may not be fully explaining the mystery of the dichotomy of predestination and free choice. I did think it was interesting that one source I read said that Molinism developed as a response to the Reformation "heresy" that natural man is born with no free will with which to choose God. Molin, therefore, developed the idea that our salvation is dependent upon grace AND our choice, but that grace is the first cause of our salvation, and our choice is the second cause. Praise God for truth and reality--neither of which we can plumb! (But is IS fun to try to explain those things we see and ponder those things we can't quite see!) Colleen | ||
| Chris (Chris) |
I'm not aware of any modern proponent of "middle knowledge" advocating for the idea that salvation is somehow a mixture of grace and meritorious decision or choice. I've seen it couched in terms that would say: God knows everything that is and ever will be, but He also knows everything that ever could be in any possible universe or reality that He could ever create (middle knowledge). This would include knowing the exact actions of every free-will creature in any situation in every universe He could ever create. He chose the universe that He would create and therefore knew the name of every single person who would receive the free gift of salvation before the world was ever formed. Likewise, he knew every person that would reject Him before the universe was formed. So by creating this particular universe/reality, He predestined all to salvation or retrobation, and yet our choices are quite real even though they are foreknown. One could surmise that He created the optimal universe where the greatest number of free-will beings would receive His free gift. Admitedly this language still allows humans to choose or choose otherwise, but it's advocates would deny that there is anything meritorious in receiving or accepting the unmerited grace of Christ. You're also right when you say it's philosophical. We have no real biblical data to *directly* support the idea, but it does help to bridge the apparent gulf between scriptures that teach predestination and scriptures that seem to suggest free-will (or at least real moral culbability). I find it fascinating. I guess from my perspective, considering these possibilities gives me a greater appreciation for the Bible and for the infinite mysteries of God. It reminds me that God is infinately large and the Bible is infinitely deep. I don't think any of us will ever run out of things to study or discuss throughout all of eternity. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
You're right, Chris. I understand how theology and philosophy that attempt to give words to difficult ideas really do deepen one's appreciation for "the infinite mysteries of God." (I like that phrase!) Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 537 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well, I can't find the thread we talked about it on, but somewhere in one of these strings, we talked about the book of revelation that has 4 parallel interpretations. I got an email to day that said Steven Gregg, who put together that book (author??) is going to be on Bible Answer Man (Hank Hanegraff) today and tomorrow. i obviously don't know how the show will go, but since we had talked about that book on here a few times, I thought I'd mention it in case anyone was interested in checking it out. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 828 Registered: 12-2003 |
Melissa, thank you for letting us know. Colleen |
