I’m often asked to assess what others teach. I do not do this lightly, but it is necessary. Before reading this page, or any of the pages about specific people, I recommend that you read What is a False Teacher?, which explains what the Bible says about false teachers, and why I would bother to research who they are and what they say. You may also want to check out a list of Bible Teachers I Can Recommend.
I’m happy to see that you’re looking for a second opinion on whether anyone, including Hank Hanegraaff, is a false teacher. That’s wise. This article is based on an email exchange and is a work in progress. It’s designed to continue the conversation about false teachers, not to end it.
My experiences
I first started listening to the Bible Answer Man radio show when I was a young teenager, around 1980. Dr. Walter Martin was the Bible Answer Man, and it was amazing. Much of my current ministry can be traced back to the many, many hours I spent learning from him. I have two different editions of Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, which is essentially the book on modern cults. I still, from time to time, look up some of the YouTube videos of Martin’s teaching. He was knowledgeable, and he was kind without being weak. When he died, Hank took his place at the CRI, the Christian Research Institute. I’ve read a number of Hank’s books, I’ve listened to literally thousands of hours of his program, and I’ve read the magazine and the online articles. Again, much of what I do today – whether it’s writing on this website or teaching in my local church – is based on what I learned from these two men over most of my life. I’m not a fanboy. I wouldn’t look the other way if they were doing something wrong. I’m simply saying that I have extensive personal experience with CRI. Keep in mind that this ministry has employed, and worked with, some of the best Christian researchers around. Were Hanegraaff a false teacher, one would expect these people to speak out.
Criticisms
Hank’s ministry at CRI has been marked by two different ‘scandals.’ The first is the claim that he stole the ministry, and the second is that he’s no longer a Christian. Walter Martin’s daughter Jill claimed that Hank had basically stolen the ministry, and that Walter Martin had no intention of naming Hank as his successor. Audio provided by Martin’s other daughter Cindee showed that Martin had indeed chosen Hank, and that he spent a couple of years preparing both Hank and CRI for the transition. Martin’s family apparently didn’t know that he was very sick until he was close to dying, but Walter knew, and he worked to ensure that CRI could continue after his death.
That ‘scandal’ died down after a while, and Hank was seen by almost everyone as the rightful head of the ministry. Then, a few years ago, Hank became a member of the Eastern Orthodox church. That was a pretty big deal, and a whole bunch of people claimed that Hank was no longer a Christian. This ‘scandal’ died down after a while, too… but there are a few people out there who continue to claim that Hank has abandoned the gospel for a cult.
Assessment
So… how are to assess the claims? Just an accusation is enough for some people, even if the accusation comes with no evidence. You’re clearly not one of those people, since you’re looking for more information. I’ll give you my assessment: Hank Hanegraaff is not a false teacher.
To be a false teacher, Hank would have to be teaching false things… that is, he would have to teach things that are contrary to what Scripture clearly teaches. Most importantly, he would have to deny some essential part of Christianity. To my knowledge, Hank has never done anything like that. If he has, I’d like to hear it or read it myself… using his own words, I could compare what he says with what God says in the Bible. Having been around since before Hank took over CRI, and continuing to see what Hank says and does today, I have absolutely no evidence that he’s a false teacher.
My advice to you is simple: if you’re concerned about what Hank teaches, read the New Testament. Be familiar with what Jesus said and did, and what His disciples wrote about Him. That way, if Hank says something wrong, you’ll KNOW it’s wrong because you know what the Bible says. It’s not enough to simply say, “he’s a false teacher.” That’s a serious claim that requires evidence. For the record, “he’s Eastern Orthodox” isn’t actually evidence that anyone is a false teacher.
Does that make sense? The person making the claim should provide evidence for the claim. After examining the evidence, one might find that they assumed too much, and that the evidence points in the other direction. The accusation that someone is a false teacher is very serious, which is why I’m very careful to provide direct quotes from the people involved.
Interact with me on Twitter!
i just read Hank’s Apocalypse Code (2007) and he definitely teaches error, generally following liberal Protestant theology regarding the Books of Daniel and Revelation (note that in 2007 he was not yet Orthodox). He also uses ad hominem arguements and arguements from silence to support his positions, as well as outright distortions of facts.
Bert:
It sounds like you’re saying that you and Hank disagree on certain aspects of eschatology. That’s not surprising, and it doesn’t mean Hank is a false teacher. Even if he’s wrong about this secondary issue, being in error about eschatology is a far cry from teaching errors about the gospel.
I would say he is one to stay away from shy of being a false teacher but I would say definitely misleading
Abs because a teacher is to live by a higher standard I would say he does not pass that test anymore
One major thing that was not mentioned in this article is that Hank also changed his view on theology and eschatology
He is a full blown Preterist saying the end of things have already been fulfilled in 70AD
If this true then it sure took him a very long time a life time ti come to that fact
To change positions this late as a teacher is unacceptable for these issues of theology should be settled once and for all.
This makes him as a teacher wishy washy and has not earned is honor ti be trusted
Lastly he believes in the sacraments that the sacrament of bread and wine is actually is turned to blood and flesh and has powers within them vs simply honoring what Christ has done and is for us
These are great issues and for these issues alone is strong enough to avoid this man
What is next that he will do an about face! He can learn on his own paying his own price for his learning experience and walking as a followers vs a very well paid teacher
Tim:
You would say, you would say, you would say.
With respect, what YOU would say is irrelevant. What I would say is irrelevant as well. The ONLY standard by which we should judge whether someone teaches falsely is to compare what they say with Scripture… period.
To be blunt:
I hope you’ve notice a pattern here, Tim. Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s unless your opinion matches what we find in Scripture. Simply disagreeing with someone about an in-house debate like communion or the rapture is not enough to malign someone as a teacher to be avoided. To suggest it is to suggest that everyone must agree with you, or be unreliable. A more mature believer understands that there are some things in Scripture that are abundantly clear, and unmistakable… and there are others that are not. A more mature believer would also understand that there will be millions (if not billions) of followers of Jesus in Heaven who will correct both you and me on what we believe.
Be mature, Tim. Stand strong for what is clear in God’s Word… but don’t pretend that everyone must agree on everything to be a reliable teacher of the gospel. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a great day!