LFW Gone Wild, Or, Hank Hanegraaf-The Wrong Answer Man

At about 6:30 pm ET Monday night, as I was headed out to eat, I tuned into the Bible Answer Man with Hank Hanegraaf. Many readers of this blog may be familiar with Brother Hank’s conversation with James White and George Bryson a few years ago, in which the topic was Calvinism. I’ll refer those unfamiliar with that conversation to A&O Ministries so that they can hear exactly how inept both Brother Hank and Brother George are at handling the pertinent issues.

Oh how I wish I had my cell phone with me last night! A dear sister called into the program professing to be a new Christian and “ignorant” about theology. Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with either proposition. I rejoice at the news of the New Birth, and I applaud any Christian who wishes to learn more and thereby alleviate his or her ignorance. However, Brother Hank did little more than perpetuate her ignorance.

Our sister was deeply concerned about the futility of the life of unbelievers, people who would obviously perish in their sins if they ever converted to Christ. What are we to make of a God who creates people knowing they will eternally perish? What was Brother Hank’s response?

1. People are created with the freedom to accept or reject Christ.

A. Really? Where, pray tell, does the Bible, Bible Answer Man, teach this? It’s worth noting that Hank never, not one time, substantiated this assertion with Scripture. I thought the title of this show was The Bible Answer Man.

B. The Bible says:

No man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him...

But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

And that’s just a small sample...

C. Not even Arminians, who profess to believe in Universal Prevenient Grace teach this, Hank, for they draw a distinction between common grace and UPG. UPG is a benefit of the cross itself and it alleviates the inability of men’s wills to accept or reject Christ.

So, Hank has put himself firmly in the semi-Pelagian camp. Men are, according to him, born with this ability. He's confused over the difference between UPG and common grace.

2. God did not create men to be sinners, He merely created the possibility for sin/evil.

A. Where does the Bible teach this? Again, no Scripture was cited.

B. This seems to be invoked to get God “off the hook” with respect to the Fall. It’s true, God did not create Adam and Eve as sinners, but nowhere does the Bible teach that He created “the possibility of evil/sin.”

C. As Grudem notes (ST: 349), this reply is unsatisfactory because it implies God will have to allow for the possibility of sinful choices in heaven eternally, because this defense is invoked (and Hank used this rationale) in order to guarantee our choices, our love for God would be meaningful. If that’s true, then God must do this in heaven too or our choices aren’t meaningful. More on this later.

D. What about the “eternal covenant” (Hebrews 13). Is this eternal covenant Plan B? What about Proverbs 16:4? Jude 4? Again, that’s just a small sample.

3. If God hasn’t done this, our love for Him would be meaningless.

A. This begs the question.

B. Where does Scripture teach such a thing? Again, the BAM didn’t support his answer with Scripture – and whenever he gives this answer, he never does so.

Our dear sister wisely replied. "If that was true, why can’t people fall away in heaven?" That’s a good question. Hank’s answer; “Because in heaven we are actualized in our choices.”

A. Huh? What Scriptures teach this? Once again, the BAM did not support his answer from, you know the Bible. I thought this program is called The Bible Answer Man.

B. We agree, grace in the intermediate and final states constrains our choices, but not because “we have been actualized in our (free will) choices," but because our nature has been fully conformed to the image of Christ.

C. So, Hank’s response is nothing more than an ad hoc restriction on libertarian freedom.

Our sister’s question was most insightful, for Hank tipped his hand such that we learned that, according to Hank men have LFW due to creation, not UPG. However to appeal to us being “actualized in our choices,” presumably due to some sort of constraining grace logically pulls in the opposite direction of the foundational statement that men must have LFW in order for their choices to be meaningful at all.

Here is the right answer:

Dear sister, Scripture teaches that God gives mercy to whomever He pleases. Scripture also teaches Jude 4, Proverbs 16:4, and Romans 11:32. This is also for His glory. Yes, it is cause to make us cry out with wonder on the one hand and distress on the other. Paul, in Romans 9, says he was greatly distressed over this truth, for the sake of his fellow Jews. Let this move you to be sure that God has a people, as yet uncalled, and that you are to share the Gospel with all persons. All those God mercies will come to Christ, and some may well do so through your efforts. What a glorious thing for us to be given the joy of participating with Him in this! Weep over the lost in this life, and yet know that Scripture also teaches that, in the end, we will look back and rejoice in what God has done, when we see His plan has unfolded completely. To God alone, through Christ alone be the glory, Amen, and Amen!

Finally, I hate to sound like one of those “aggressive Calvinists” that Frank Cox dislikes, but, honestly, this is, perhaps, why so many Calvinists are “aggressive.” These sorts of unbiblical, unsupportable, and frankly horrible answers come too often from the lips of Brother Hank and many an actual anti-Calvinist. They frustrate us, even anger us.

On the one hand, this makes doing apologetics with atheists easier for us Calvinists, as the comment stream here has shown. Atheistic apologetics seems catered to Arminianism, probably because (a) Arminianism/Libertarianism is the majority position right now theologically and (b) it’s just such an easy target.

On the other hand, we have the old adage that the Gospel with which you win them is the one that will keep them. No wonder the drop-out rate in SBC churches alone is appalling. Yet, the Libertarians plow on. When we have Open Theists conceding the problem of evil too boot, well, what more needs to be said?

So, here’s a challenge.

1. For the Arminians/Libertarians: Where, pray tell, does the Bible invoke the Free Will Defense? As I’ve asked more than once, where does the Bible teach LFW? Shouldn’t we employ theodicean answers the Bible actually employs?

2. We on T-blog often deal with more, how shall we say, academically minded opponents, but, in my mind, the hearts of the people are captured by popularizers, men like Brother Hank. At the risk of sounding “aggressive,” I’d like to encourage our faithful readers to, when you get the opportunity, contact Hank, indeed, call his show, and ask the questions I posed in (1) above. Indeed, ask him to substantiate his answer to the problem of evil with Scripture. When he tries to give an answer, be ready to remind him that Arminians/Libertarians like Walls and Dongell admit to LFW being a philosophical position, not an exegetical one.

When Hank tries to run to the “Well, it can be deduced from Scripture” defense, respectfully ask him which Scriptures he has in mind. No doubt he will refer to some command. Remind him that’s a classic case of begging the question. Nothing can be deduced about ability from a command. This, incidentally, is why I always ask the proponents of LFW that question. Our rule of faith is Sola Scriptura. If Scripture doesn't teach it, we shouldn't believe it. LFW is a wholly philosophical position. It can't be deduced from Scripture at all, and Scripture, every time it ascribes our choices to our desires in such a way that what we desire is a sufficient cause (for example James 1:14 - 15), it explicitly contradicts Libertarian Action Theory. We've been over that many times here.

The FWD is unbiblical, since the Bible does not support a libertarian definition of “free will.” It should be jettisoned – period.