Hank’s Hanegraaff’s long awaited eschatology book The Apocalypse Code is finally here and to kick off the release he was interviewed by Dr. Frank Turek (a popular apologist made famous by his speaking / writing relationships with Norman Geisler). I listened to the broadcast and even got on the second hour (I am “Doug from Monroe, NC”). My comments on that interaction are below, but what it boiled down to for me was that after waiting for about a decade to have Hanegraaff’s views spelled out, I was disapointed to discover that he offers little to the current eschatology debate. Most of his interpretations fall well within the partial Preterist view as anyone even remotely familiar with the subject will quickly see. I am not necessarily in disagreement with many of these arguments, but I am rather frustrated by his campaign strategy for The Apocalypse Code and would now like to officially rant about it.
When I called in to the show I asked Hanegraaff if he, in his book, had responded to criticisms leveled by respected dispensational scholars against the views he holds in concert with standard partial Preterism (which up until that point in the show were all he had given). He did not answer my question. Instead, Hank simply stated that he was not a partial Preterist (not that I had said he was) and spent a few minutes commenting on his interpretation of some unrelated verse in Isaiah. I was then asked by Frank Turek to provide some good dispensational arguments. I did not want to get away from my initial question, which had not been answered, and so I attempted to explain that I knew Hank’s position was labeled neither Preterist nor Futurist, and that I simply wanted to know about how he answered scholarly criticisms of the arguments. Before I could make that clear Hanegraaff interrupted me saying, “Just answer the question, I already answered yours.” Well, no he didn’t. Further, I did not wait on hold for 45 minutes to be asked questions - this was still the Bible Answer Man show wasn’t it? Unfortunately, Hanegraaff seems to simply sidestep criticisms of “his” interpretations by disavowing himself of the commonly accepted titles for them. The titles, however, are not the issue. If the arguments are the same then the responses to those arguments (which have been around for some time) should be dealt with.
What really bothers me is the fact that Hanegraaff seemed to be presenting his views as if they represent some “paradigm shift” (his words) in biblical eschatology. Those in the know realize that the bulk of Hank’s “discoveries” are just warmed over partial Preterism, repackaged for popular consumption. The examples and arguments given on Hank’s show Tuesday and Wednesday are what one would hear in their the first day of a ”Preterism 101″ class. Not only are these views old news, but none of the hermeneutical principles he espouses are new or unique either. The title of his view is, laughably, Exegetical Eschatology (or “E2″ for you Bible Answer Man nerds) - as if he alone has discovered that the key to eschatological truth is “letting the Bible speak for itself” and “comparing Scripture with Scripture.” Does Hanegraaff seriously expect his listeners to believe that no one else makes these very same claims? Those seeing “E2″ as a startling new methodology or interpretive scheme only show their ignorance of the subject.
Another problem I have with Hanegraaff is that while he claims to “not be offering a different model of eschatology, but only a different method of biblical interpretation,” he openly attacks one view in particular (Dispensationalism). But Hank does not interact with seriously respected scholars from the dispensational position (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Tom Ice, etc.). Instead, Hanegraaff’s attacks are leveled against fringe speakers like John Hagee and fiction authors like Tim LaHaye. I did a quick perusal of Apocalypse Code’s Notes section and counted 100 citations of Tim LaHaye, 14 of Hal Lindsey, and 12 of John Hagee. On the other hand, I found notable Dispensationalist scholars like John Walvoord, Norm Geisler, and Paul Benware cited no more than 2 times each (sometimes Tom Ice was cited with LaHaye. Ice was cited 4 times in non-LaHaye collaborations). Charles Ryrie, who literally wrote the book on Dispensationalism, is not cited once! Hanegraaff can get away with this, though, because his audience falls neatly between the academics (who generally aren’t interested*) and the lay-Christian community (that generally does not know enough to challenge him). This allows Hank to get away with more than he would otherwise.
*Two apparent exceptions to the above concern deserve comment. First, Dr. Norman Geisler (during his time as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary), commented on Hank’s fictional book The Last Disciple on his website (www.normgeisler.com), but this was in response to those contacting him at SES concerning Hank’s view. Second, Dr. Frank Turek, Hank’s interviewer on the Bible Answer Man show in question, holds a professional Doctor of Ministry degree (D.Min) - not an academic one - in an unrelated subject area (apologetics). No emphasis in Eschatology is included in the curriculum for this degree, and was the subject of only one half of one semester during his Master’s program (also in apologetics, see www.ses.edu). Dr. Turek himself admits in his review on Amazon.com that, “Perhaps the reason I hadn’t realized this sooner is because I never took a real interest in eschatology.” Therefore neither his educational background nor his credentials should be seen as evidence that scholarly dispensational eschatologists are taking Hank’s view seriously. If they do in the future, and Hank takes the opportunity to engage them, that would correct a serious deficiency.
So, should you read Apocalypse Code? Sure, why not? But whether or not you are impressed with the arguments – and especially if you are – make sure to follow up with scholarly books that are keeping up with the current debate. Recent books by (Preterist) Kenneth Gentry and (Dispensationalist) Tom Ice would be a good place to start.
57 responses so far ↓
rbirtell // April 19, 2007 at 4:42 am
Ooops. I guess I didn’t use the blockquote tag correctly. Let me try again.
Doug,
When you say:
“Another problem I have with Hanegraaff is that while he claims to not be offering a different model of eschatology, but only a different method of biblical interpretation, he openly attacks one view in particular (Dispensationalism). But Hank does not interact with seriously respected scholars from the dispensational position (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Tom Ice, etc.).”
I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I stopped listening and supporting Hank.
-Randall
2005 SES Graduate
Matt Graham // April 19, 2007 at 7:07 am
Doug,
I listened to your interaction with Hank online. You are right, he did not answer your questions. Maybe people who answer questions all the time get so used to it that they stop listening to the questions and just start giving semi-related speaches. (I won’t name any other people we know who are like that)
I am also highly irritated by the fact that Hank presents this as some new view that he stumbled upon. That is ignorant at best and deceptive at worst. Even if it is a modification of one of the standard views, he doesn’t seem to want to give credit to anyone else.
I also see your point about Hank being in a sort of nebulous “middle ground” intellectually. I know that you have studied this topic enough to know if Hank is responding to the scholarly arguments for the dispensational view. Thanks for shedding light on this issue!
Larry Lee // April 19, 2007 at 7:24 am
Doug,
Good points all.
By the way, I’m really glad you asked the question about Hank’s view of the leopard lying down with the goat in Isaiah 11 - that was very helpful to me in my personal studies of eschatology.
You ask great questions even when you don’t realize it!
Larry
Doug Beaumont // April 19, 2007 at 7:28 am
Larry,
Ha ha - yeah, thanks for that goat stuff Hank - that cleared things right up!
A.C. // April 19, 2007 at 9:26 am
Doug,
Hey. I heard you talking with Hank.
Or rather, I heard Hank talking AT you.
I understood your question, but I didn’t understand anything in his answer. I am surprised he did not say something about wheat and chaff. It seems like he can work that into an answer for any and all questions.
AC
Marge Alley // April 24, 2007 at 12:20 pm
For dispies and non-dispies I have come across some Google and Yahoo articles that can blow anyone away. If interested, type in “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” (how the 177-year-old scheme grew and captivated Americans), Thomas Ice (Bloopers)” (the “genius” LaHaye etc. lean on), “Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal” (rampant plagiarism!), “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” and “The Rapture Index (Mad Theology)” - all composed by the historian the dispies hate but cannot answer. Marge
Matt Graham // April 26, 2007 at 6:02 am
Marge, have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy? The article by Dave MacPherson that you are talking about would be a good example of this fallacy.
Best Regards,
Matt
Marge Alley // April 27, 2007 at 3:18 am
Matt: Can you be more specific in regard to MacPherson? Which article of his do you have in mind? MacPherson has stated that he isn’t posttrib because he wants to go through the tribulation but because Scripture and his speciality (church history) have convinced him of the validity of posttrib. He has also stated (he often guests on Christian radio talk shows) that he is a typical American and is overweight, loves junk food, doesn’t have “Martyr” for a middle name, and when a nurse takes a blood sample he doesn’t watch because he’s chicken and can’t stand the sight of blood! Matt, you must be aware that even Ice, Jeffrey, LaHaye etc. admit that no pre-1830 church or official theology ever taught a pretrib rapture, and MacPherson’s web piece “Deceiving and Being Deceived” proves that the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem and Morgan Edwards are groundless and that deliberate misrepresentation was employed in announcing and maintaining them! Also, his web article “Scholars Weigh My Research” includes a galaxy Christian scholars who have checked out and then endorsed his research. What is your motive, Matt, for broadbrushing MacPherson’s decades of research and not analyzing any important point that he brings up? Marge
Matt Graham // April 27, 2007 at 9:28 am
Marge,
I don’t claim to be an expert in the area of eschatology. In fact I don’t claim to be an expert in any area. However, I don’t need to be an expert logician to see that you can’t disprove dispensational / pretrib view by pointing out the origins of the belief system. The article that I am refering to is:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/macpherson-dave_dd_05-01.html
You don’t refute a theological view by noting the historical development of the view. To attempt to refute pretribs by citing its origin and or its historical development is to commit the genetic fallacy. To argue for or against a pretrib view, you have to offer exegetical arguments. I am sure that MacPherson attempts to do this somewhere, but the article I cited above is not a refutation of the pretrib view. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of an exegetical argument by MacPherson.
Additionally, my psychological motives for my earlier comments are not relevant to the argument for or against the pretrib view. Granted, I only read one webpage, but my comments about it were accurate.
Matt
Jeremy // April 28, 2007 at 5:53 am
Personally speaking, I loved the book Apocalypse Code by Hanegraaff. It was a refreshing different look from the mainstream evangelical pretrib, premil, LaHaye type of end-time view. Whether his view is correct or not, I have appreciated his attempt of trying to help people to read the Bible for all its worth.
In some posts above, people have tried to label Hank as a partial preterist. Why the labels? Is it so you can dimiss anything he says without giving it any serious consideration? “Oh, I don’t have to listen to his argument on this, because he is a preterist!” To me, that shows an unteachable spirit.
For many years now I have listened to preachers and pastors teach the pretrib, premil view. I have listened attentively, and in an attempt to understand their views have studied (with an open heart and mind) their views. I did not dismiss their teachings or ideas because they were pretribbers!
I guess what I am trying to say is that I am thankful that Hank has written this book. Instead of labeling him in an effort to dismiss his work, maybe one should try to listen to him with an open heart. If he doesn’t address your question directly, then I would suggest writing to CRI for clarification. You might get it, and you might not.
Overall! Nice effort by Hank! May God’s Spirit illumine our minds so that we can understand His plan for the end.
Doug Beaumont // April 28, 2007 at 7:09 am
Jeremy,
What you have accused others of here on this post is actually Hank’s problem. HE is the one broad-brushing Dispensationalists and accusing them all of one person’s (LaHaye) mistakes. This is probably why he gets so jumpy when someone tries the same thing on him!
Labels mean things. Whether Hank likes it or not, if he is going to use the same arguments and come to the same conclsions as a specific group then he should simply admit that. Instead, he pretends that these views are simply the result of “his” method. This is the same kind of claim made by virtually all interpreters. The eschatological categories are fairly exhaustive - one cannot simply choose not to be associated with one category just to avoid particular problems.
Further, this is EXACTLY why I called in! I wanted to give Hank a chance to say something that was NOT partial preterist! If he is not a PP then there must be something in his view that is different to distinguish him. Instead of giving an answer he just exegeted an unrelated text and then turned on me. He had his chance n front of thousands of listeners to back up his claim to not be a PP and he didn’t do it. That’s hardly “not being teachable” or not “listening with an open heart” (whatever that means).
BTW - conspicuously absent from my post is any hint of disagreement with any of his actual eschatological conclusions. Maybe you are too quick to label me.
Maestroh Bill Brown // April 28, 2007 at 11:28 am
As a current student at Dallas Theological Seminary studying Eschatology under Dr. J. Lanier Burns, I must respond to this. A friend of mine called me about a month ago as she was listening to Hank and heard about this. So I’ve listened to most of the first show. Here’s what I’ve heard:
1) He’s bashing dispensationalism and saying what’s wrong with it. He is not, however, taking a position - probably because ALL eschatological positions have weak links.
2) He’s going after Hal Lindsey (yesterday’s news) and Tim LaHaye - a FICTION author. Talk about pounding a straw man!! And in the course of bashing LaHaye for sensationalism we, of course, need to buy his book about the Apocalypse Code.
3) He has not exegeted even ONE passage of Scripture. Given the fact that he doesn’t know Greek, this is hardly surprising - but he has the audacity to call his stuff ‘exegesis.’
4) He has not interacted with Piper, Walvoord, Carson, Ryrie, Moo, Grudem, Bock, Blaising, or any of the premillenniall exegetes - all of whose shoes Hank is unworthy to loosen in the area of exegesis.
5) Before anyone labels me, I don’t know what I am. I’m evaluating the full argument. But this is sloppy sensationalism that would make LaHaye proud.
He has spent 45 minutes talking about politics and sensationalism - and after bashing Lindsey for supposedly uncovering a ‘code,’ the commerical implies you need Hank’s book to ‘read the Bible for all it’s worth.’
I stopped supporting CRI years ago when a Word of Faith defender wrote a book and I merely asked that they review it since it dealt with some of their arguments. They refused. Now he’s pounding on the fringe again.
Or maybe this is a Coke-Pepsi alliance between LaHaye and Hank? Think about it - people who haven’t read “Left Behind” are going to go buy it now and compare.
I’m not a conspiracy nut, but maybe that’s what this is all about.
A.C. // April 30, 2007 at 10:33 am
I have not quite decided on my eschatology stance, but I lean toward a partial preterist view.
This is the part that bugs me about Hank. Why be so covert about the view? He acts as though he is ashamed of it. Just be honest, say what you think and if it falls into one camp or another just admit it. It seems he is just trying to brand it as something different so he can make money.
Also, in case anyone posting has not actually had a conversation with Doug about eschatology then you should know that depending on what day it is and whether he wants to mess with your brain or not, he can give great points for either of the views we are discussing (PP vs. Disp.PreMil). Honestly, I am not even positive what his personal view on the matter is.
- A.C.
Marge Alley // May 1, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Matt: Although MacPherson’s speciality is the history of pretrib, he does back up his posttrib position with Bible. Let me summarize some of his argumentation: I Thess. 4:17 is tied to the I Thess. 5:3 “sudden destruction” (note “times and seasons”
which all agree is in a posttrib setting. (If the wicked are destroyed at the start or middle of the trib, who’d be left on earth to serve the Antichrist?) And I Cor. 15:52’s rapture is tied to vs. 54 (note “when” and “then” 
which quotes Isa. 25:8 which all agree is a reference to Israel’s posttrib resurrection. Apparently the technique learned in too many seminaries is to read pretrib into I Thess. 4:17 and skip over the tie-in and also to dwell endlessly on how fast the “twinkling” is in I Cor. 15:52 and ignore its tie-in. (Death, of course, won’t be ended at the trib’s start or middle but only after the trib!) If pretrib is true, Paul should have placed our rapture several years before the “sudden destruction” and several years before the end of death. Isn’t it safest to begin with such clear passages and harmonize unclear passages with them instead of reading pretrib into unclear passages (including unexplained “types” and “symbols” 
and ignoring clear passages? MacPherson discovered that the earliest pretrib developers based their view on only “types” and “symbols” because they admitted there is no clear “before the tribulation” statement anywhere in Scripture! And he found that it took them several decades, while outdoing each other in “finding” plausible symbols earlier and earlier in the book of Revelation (in order to get out of more and more of that book’s disasters), to finally agree on Rev. 4:1 as the best possible symbol for their prior rapture! In case anyone would like to see MacPherson’s No. 1 book on pretrib history - The Rapture Plot - I know that it can be borrowed through inter-library loan via any library. It is 300 pages and has been endorsed by many leading evangelicals. So, yes, he does deal with Scriptural arguments even though his cup of tea is church history. Marge
Earl Smith // May 13, 2007 at 1:11 am
I bought a one-year subscription to the CRI newsletter/magazine. Yet amongst the plethora of reasonably thorough articles about one or another biblical issue, I was horrified to read Hank’s argument as to why the 144,000 and the “innumerable multitude” are one and the same! I believe he ignores all sound exegesis, including grammar and context, in order to advance his own reasonings. I am therefore very wary of accepting his arguments in his new book. He seems to be steeped in numerology at the expense of a plain reading of scripture. Watchtower officials do the same. It’s dangerous territory!!
Jeffrey Ady // May 19, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I’ve had to stop listening to BAM lately, not hardly because I am a dispensationalist by choice, but because of the constant hawking of CRI.
Mr Hanegraaf’s work has not impressed me with its originality and I have to admit to some disappointment at his frequent characterization of his ideas as groundbreaking. Is it strangely ironic that his title “The Apocalypse Code” cannot really be separated from Hal Lindsey’s 1997 “Apocalypse Code”, just as his jingoistic use of “read the Bible for all its worth” reminds me every time of Gordon Fee’s much-more-substantive and -successful volume? Surely the irony is not lost on him–but it sadly seems characteristic of much of his work.
One problem with revolutions is that sooner or later someone’s starting a new one at your expense. Vive la revolutión, while you’re ahead of the curve. It won’t last. Is there not some message truly more transcendent to preach to suffering hearts in these darkening days?
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.
John Hubers // May 19, 2007 at 9:11 pm
This is an interesting discussion which illuminates two things: 1) Hank H. has gotten under your skin. I believe that was his intension 2) You don’t like the fact that Hank H. is doing what popular dispensationalist writers have been doing for years - including Walvoord - selling their wares on the popular Christian market to suck people into their particular take on what is certainly the most speculative branch of Christian theology. In every case (including Hank’s) the proponents of a particular eschatology act speak with a certainty that it is impossible to have. 3) Hank is doing what most every popular dispensationalist author does (remember this is radio, not a theology class) - bashing those who disagree with them. You’re doing it yourself by trying to discredit Hank by giving him a label.
Richard Goulette // May 24, 2007 at 11:53 pm
John, I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head. Eschatology is a non-essential, just like election vs. free will. If we put aside our pride, we open ourselves in these situations and end up being “pan millenialists,” knowing that in the end, it will all “pan” out. That being said, I do believe the partial preterist viewpoint offers more solid arguments than the dispensationalist viewpoint. And, from a geo-political standpoint, partial preterism doesn’t have the tendency to foment hatred to Muslims the way some of our religious, political, and talk show hosts convey that espouse the dispensationlist view. What I’m saying is that our eshcatalogical views don’t matter for salvation, but I think we can be held accountable if these views don’t emulate Christ’s example that each of us is to “give a reason for the hope that lies within us, but with gentleness and respect.”
James Kral // May 27, 2007 at 6:57 am
I agree with Hank Hanegraaff. Hank Hanegraaff does not interpret the Bible according to any particular view such as partial preterism, rather, he properly interprets scripture in light of scripture in order to properly understand the verse or passage. No doubt, the critics of Hank Hanegraaff have probably not even read his book “The Apocalypse Code” and yet they criticize him even though they have never read his book.
Greg Norlen // May 28, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I am in the midst of reading the Apocalypse Code, after spending the last eght years researching the issue of dispensational teaching.
There are a multitude of reason why the dispy system should be abandoned. Let make it simple. If it is new it cannot be true, and it is new.
Even Ryrie and Walvoord admit that it is a new system of interpretation.
In the Bible we have many Scriptures to apply to this issue. Let’s use two.
In John 14:16 and 26 we have Jesus promising the Holy Spirit to those that are “in Christ”. And in 2 Peter 1:20-21 we are taught that “no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophesy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
Although there is such a thing as historic premillenial teaching, (which died out very quickly in the early church) we do not see any corresponding teaching throughout the first 1850 years of the Christian faith comparable to the dispensational premillenial teaching that has emerged with its distinctives of pre-trib rapture and a restoration of natural, ethnic Israel with a rebuilt temple, etc.
The problem that no Dispensational “scholar” has ever been able to overcome is the fact that the dispy system is a new way to interpret the Bible.
So therefore, in order for the system to be true, then the manner in which the first 1850 years of beleivers in Christ interpretted the Bible must be false. You must presuppose nearly 1900 years of error to emobrace the dispy system.
In order for this to be true, one must conclude that at least one of the following occured; 1) that God has given new revelation, 2) or that the Holy Spirit failed to properly teach the first 18 and one half centuries of believers, 3) or that Jesus was wrong about the teaching that would come from the Holy Spirit; 4) or that those same believers over the course of nearly 1900 years were all quenching the Holy Spirit.
Another clue to the deception and error of the dispensational system is the way that those who defend it use cleverness of speech and lies of ommission. It does not take much research to see how Thomas Ice has manipulated and altered Psuedo-Ephreum’s writing to attempt to claim that pre-trib rapture was always taught in the faith.
It is also quite interesting that the dispy talking point always claims that they “interpret the Bible literally”, which of course implies that everyone else does something differently to it. This is slanderous and a sin. Would one try to claim that Spurgeon or Sproul do not literally take the Word as authoritative? Of course not, it is merely using the linguistic tool of implicature to fool mind that the Dispensational talking point claims the high ground in taking the Bible literally.
There are two major reasons that expose this as nothing more than “empty words”. 1) A major distinction of the dispensational system claims a suspension of prophetic time (two thousand years and counting now) between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27. Without this interpretation of Daniel, the whole dispy system collapses. Yet no one can claim there is a LITERAL teaching within the Bible that indicates the suspecsion of time. The dispensationalist merely posits that this is true, even though it literally exists nowhere in the Word.
The other clue that the Dispensational system is a false system based upon empty words also lies within the continual insistence that they take the Bible “literally”, while others “spiritualize it” or allegorize it.
One Dispensational maxim claims such things as “Israel is always Israel”, demanding that only those with the DNA of Abraham are really Jews or Israelites. While insisting they are taking the Scripture literally, what they are really doing is demanding that the Word is interpretted according to a natural, worldly understanding.
However, the true and HONEST distinction is not between the literal and the allegorical or spiritual, but rather between the natural and the supernatural or spiritual.
If the Bible teaches that God is Spirit, we understand that it is LITERALLY teaching a supernatural truth.
If you question a Dispensational scholar closely enough, you will see that the system merely spiritualizes or allegorizes the interpretation of Scripture in a different manner than historic Christianity. Therfore, it is a falsehood for them to claim a literal interpretation while implying that their theological opponents do not take the Bible as literally authoritative.
The authentic searcher of truth will find that the Dispensational system has been borrowed from the “Tradition of the Elders” in the time of Christ on earth. This is the interpetation of prophesy as taught by the Pharissees in the time of Christ.
They had taught Israel to look for a Messiah that would establish an ethnically Jewish kingdom on earth, with the Jews ruling the earth.
But the New Testament writers taught us the accurate and true way to interpret the Old Testament prophesies.
The prophesy regarding the Messiah of Daniel 9:24-27 was fullfiled in Christ. God made good on His promise to “remember Israel”.
If one does a study on the term “Kingdom”, you will find that the Kingdom began with the first advent of Christ.
If one does a study on the term “tribulation”, you will find that in every instance it is used, the people of God should expect to suffer the tribulation, yet be spared the wrath of the final judgment.
If one does a study on the term “anti-christ”, you will find that the term applies to those living in the time of the Apostles that denied the Divinity of Christ and His work, and also applies to any person or insititution throughout time that does the same.
These are quite literally interpretations of the Word, and are quite the opposite of the Dispensational demand to place these events and persons into the distant future.
Let us not forget that Jesus tells us that the Gospel must be preached to the whole world and then the end shall come. What end? Peter tells us it is the destruction of the heavens and the earth.
Now finally, the biggest reason to reject the dispensational system as the heretical doctrine that it is, comes from the emergence of it’s political brother, Christian Zionism.
This system has brought us to the brink of World War by arrousing the anger of the Islamic world, rather than seeking to bring the truth of Christ to them.
Zionism demands a rebuilt temple by destroying the 2nd most holy shrine of Islam, and also expanding the border to include the land from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq.
Zionism resulted in the removal of about 50,000 Christian Palestinians from their homes in 1948.
Zionism made typical Christian missionary outreach illegal in Israel. When? On Christmas Day 1977.
We are taught to support Israel unconditionally are we not? How often do you hear “we must support Israel”? How often have you heard that statement qualified? Never?
Jesus commanded us to go out and make disciples of all nations, He never told us to do anything such as support one unbelieving people over another unbelieving people.
May God Be Glorified.
Greg
Doug Beaumont // May 29, 2007 at 6:13 am
Richard,
What is it about other views that make them “prideful”? When scholars come to conclusions they are prideful, but when you come to your conclusion of “pan-millennialism” it is “putting aside your pride”? How prideful of you to say that!
Further, if eschatology is so unimportant, why is Revelation - the only eschatological book in the NT - the only book to specifically promise blessings to those who read it and curses on those who distort it?
Maybe instead of “putting away your pride” and relying on your non-view to keep you safe from criticism you should study to show yourself approved and not try to relegate this portion of Scripture to mere idealism.
Doug Beaumont // May 29, 2007 at 6:22 am
Greg,
While I can understand and even agree with many of your points - your 4 way dilemma is predicated on your own misunderstanding of John 14:16, 26 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. Neither view promises believers Holy Spirit-aided interpretive powers. Jn. 14:26 is a promise to the disciples regarding their memory of what Jesus had already taught them, and 2 Pt. 1:20 is written with regard to writing prophesy - not interpreting it. Thus, your dilemma fails.
This is mere chronological snobbery. The origin or age of a doctrine has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. The same argument could be made for virtually any doctrine one wishes to investigate - they all came along at some point in history and to argue that everyone before that point had this 4 way dilemma would be ridiculous. We should expect to grow in truth as we dig deeper into God’s word, and eschatology has not been a main issue until recently in the Church’s history.
Ian Hegger // May 29, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Greg,
You claim that there is no historical grounding for the gap in Daniel 9:24-27. Let me ask then, when were the six things mentioned in verse 24 fulfilled? It doesn’t seem to me that:
1) The transgression of Israel has been finished (in fact, you point this out in your appeal to their unjust expulsion of the Palestinian Christians)
2) That an end has been made to sin (there is still plenty of this going on today)
3) That atonement has been made for iniquity (OK, this happened)
4) That everlasting righteousness has been ushered in (Hmmm… Not quite here yet)
5) That vision and prophecy had been sealed (the apostles wrote the NT after the 490 years, does that mean its not based on true visions and prophecy)
6) And the holy of holies had been anointed (also yet to happen)
The fact is, these things all require a fulfillment that goes beyond the 490 literal years, so a gap is inevitable, regardless of one’s interpretation. In addition, there is some strong evidence from the early church fathers that a futurist fulfillment of prophecy is expected. For example, Ireneaus spoke of the Antichrist as a man who was to come, not a general spirit already present(Against Heresies, 1.13.1; about AD 185). What makes this interesting for this discussion is that Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp, the disciple of John. Now, if anyone should be trusted with their views regarding the events written by John, it would be Polycarp, and there is no reason to think that Ireneaus was a distorter of Polycarp’s teaching. Futurism is not new, and therefore can be trusted. I would love to go further, but haven’t researched the other areas far enough (dispensationalism and pre-millenialism). Maybe someone else can defend those positions.
Ian
John Hubers // May 30, 2007 at 10:09 am
Richard - well said. You’re one of the first I’ve heard to make this crucial point about dispensationalism leading to a hatred for Muslims. The problem is not that eschatology is unimportant, but rather that the schemes which are concocted around the apocalyptic literature of the Bible become overly dogmatic - becoming a litmus test for orthodoxy when, in fact, no one can be sure about how it all works. And when this dogmatism is accompanied with an other-ization of those who are declared to be the villians in the particular scheme a proponent latches onto - it moves dangerously towards the very kind of hatred that is denounced in no uncertain terms by the Lord of Love.
Richard Goulette // May 31, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Doug,
Brother in Christ, you didn’t read my 4th sentence!–”That being said, I do believe the partial preterist viewpoint offers more solid arguments than the dispensationalist viewpoint. And, from a geo-political standpoint, partial preterism doesn’t have the tendency to foment hatred to Muslims the way some of our religious, political, and talk show hosts convey that espouse the dispensationlist view.” So I humbly submit that I find myself supporting the partial preterist camp, albeit with the knowledge that, as one of the other fine gents above has said “the proponents of a particular eschatology act speak with a certainty that it is impossible to have.”
When I say prideful, I mean this–a pastor/teacher in So. Cal beginning his recent conference with this topic–”Why every Self-Respecting Calvininst is a Pre-Millenialist” This with the knowledge that one of his good friends (and often co-speaker) is a Partial Preterist. This with the knowledge that dozens of the Reformed faithful in the audience favor an Eschatology of a different flavor. This with the knowlege that some of the brightest Christian minds over the last 2 Millenia like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc. favored the AMill or Post Mill camp. Now don’t stop reading, because I don’t think it’s especially humble for Hank to say that the type of dispensationalism that LaHaye favors is misguided at best and blasphemous at worst. Name-calling and arrogance might go hand in hand, but not in Jesus’ hands!
So there you have it. And because the Word of God is “living and dynamic,” may it not keep my heart dull and lifeless, and unable to be open to/understand some good truths and arguments that you have!
Doug Beaumont // May 31, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Richard,
I did read your 4th sentence - I was responding to your 3rd.
This debate can get out of hand but that’s no reason to give up. I don’t see many “pan-Calvinists” or “pan-Trinitarians” out there. 
The additional mitigation you have added to your prior statements is welcome indeed!
Jesse // June 18, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Maestroh Bill Brown :
“1) He’s bashing dispensationalism and saying what’s wrong with it. He is not, however, taking a position - probably because ALL eschatological positions have weak links.”
I’m trying to figure out exactly what he believes as well. I’m also trying to figure out: If I buy his book, is it going to tell what he believes or is it just going to bash dispensationism? I’ll take the former, but can do without the latter.
Patrick H. // June 25, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hank seems to think that his book is going to start a “new paradigm” towards eschatology. What a laugh. John Gerstner couldn’t do that, and Vern Poythress couldn’t do that either. I have heard his argument about the fact that dispensationalism is very recent. This is an argument also used by others, Ladd also used it. But it falls flat if the doctrine of progressive revelation is true. And saying that just because Church fathers didn’t think or teach a pretrib rapture shouldn’t factor much. Those people had enough on their hands with the Arian controversy and eschatology was not systematized. If pretrib haters are truthful they would understand Church Fathers believed both in Imminence and Post-trib, a contradiction in terms if we look at those in today’s context.
Heck the Fathers seemed to believe in Baptismal regeneration! The fact that dispensationalism is “late” shouldn’t make it right or wrong. There were heresies such as docetism during the time of the apostles, and it appears addressed in scripture yet you wouldn’t say that is the most awful heresy just because it goes back to the writing of scripture would you?
Covenant theology people should admit their own system does not appear fully in the church fathers and comes about 140 years or so before darby, very late as well. Heck wake up and realize that the reformation itself, didn’t happen until the 15th century! It doesn’t matter if Luther read from Augustine, justification by faith does not come into full fruition until the reformers.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Jeff // June 26, 2007 at 5:11 am
The doctrine of Progressive Revelation isn’t any more true for protestants than it was for Joseph Smith or any other 1800’s+ cult. Why would we beleive JN Darby’s revelations are more biblical then Smith’s extrabiblical ones? They both serve their creator’s purpose.
Hank has never purported to be a scholar, and I’ve listened to BAM since the beginning. He is an aggregator, and CRI is not trying to be the intellectual equivalet of Dallas TS. But his methodology of going after the popular voices of Dispyism is akin to his successful campaign against Benny Hinn in Counterfeit Christianity. Wheter his Esch. is PP in nature is fine with me - we NEED more PP advocates in the mainstream. Just look around - “left behind” has taken over.
Thanks for the interesting post and blog!
Tim Jones // July 12, 2007 at 12:52 am
This may be a little late, but to further this point:
“I don’t claim to be an expert in the area of eschatology. In fact I don’t claim to be an expert in any area. However, I don’t need to be an expert logician to see that you can’t disprove dispensational / pretrib view by pointing out the origins of the belief system. The article that I am refering to is:”
Only after what Martin Luther did we realize, again, that we are justified by faith through grace. Who knows when this teaching was lost. So, for 500 years we’ve had this teaching, again, that was lost. But, like the rapture, Paul held to this belief and also held to the belief of a rapture. To say that something is started again only recently as evidence is foolishness, considering that justification by faith through grace was at one time lost as well.
Maestroh // July 14, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Greg Norlen states:
I am in the midst of reading the Apocalypse Code, after spending the last eght years researching the issue of dispensational teaching.
There are a multitude of reason why the dispy system should be abandoned. Let make it simple. If it is new it cannot be true, and it is new.
Response:
Thank you for using the antiquated argument that TRUTH is determined by AGE. The age of an idea has NOTHING to do with its veracity.
There was a time when the message of the Cross was ‘new.’ I’m sure the Pharisees tried that very same argument.
Dispensationalism is problematic on a number of biblical grounds, but to use the ‘it didn’t exist until 1830′ argument is to use PHILOSOPHY to determine THEOLOGY - something we are explicitly warned against in Scripture.
Chris // July 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I think it’s silly to accuse Hank of trying to claim some new idea; if you pay attention to his show he is adamant that none of what he says is new, but in the pages of scripture. One of his biggest critiques of dispensationilsm is that it can (and often does) lead to anti-semitism.
As for critiquing Lindsay and LaHaye, THESE are the guys that most evangelical Christians today are exposed to, so naturally he would single them out.
Is HH perfect? No, but he is a fierce defender of Scripture, and we need many more of these today.
Maestroh // August 7, 2007 at 3:43 am
The anti-Semitic argument is typical of the slanderous National Enquirer mentality Hanegraaff invokes. Let’s play dispensationalist for just a minute:
“You deny God’s promises to Israel. Therefore, you are an anti-Semite.”
See how it works?
Doesn’t matter that such is thoroughly unfair, but it is the same old tactic with Hank.
I will no longer support CRI - not due to his eschatology but due to his highly questionable ethics on a number of counts.
Greg Norlen // August 29, 2007 at 6:42 am
Maestroh,
You missed the point when you wrote; “Thank you for using the antiquated argument that TRUTH is determined by AGE. The age of an idea has NOTHING to do with its veracity.”
I said nothing about how old something was - to be the determining point about whether it was true or not. I said that if it is new it cannot be true. Those may sound the same to you, but if you think it through, past the seducing spirit, you will see they are not the same.
The reason that new revelation in regards to the Word of God cannot be true, is that the Gospel was delivered once unto all the saints, as Jude tells us. John 14 and 1 John 2:27 tell us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Of course there are many more verses to give us comfort that God opens the minds of His people tounderstand what the natural mind cannot understand.
In order for over 1800 years to go by before dispensational premillenial christian zionism emerges as the new gospel, it would mean that all Christians throughout that era had it wrong, for no pre-1800 Christian ever taught what has come from Darby to Ryrie.
My friend, that is simply not using philosophy to make the argument, it is using the Bible’s promise to the people of God.
When you claim the dispy system is the way to true interpretation of the Bible, by default you accuse nearly every brother and sister in Christ who lived prior to Darby of false teaching or false understanding.
I simply cannot beleive that God allowed His people to be so ignorant for nearly 2000 years, and up pops a couple of guys that have a terrible testimony, and we folow thim like the sheep God calls us.
Love in Christ,
g
Pastor Vic // September 28, 2007 at 2:50 am
As people like Hank Hanegraaff emerge so is the prophesy as stated by the disciple Peter fulfilled.
2Pe:3:3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe:3:4: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe:3:5: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe:3:6: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe:3:7: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Greg Norlen // September 28, 2007 at 3:02 am
Hi Pastor Vic,
Brother, you should rethink your accusations, and check your sources so that you are not a slanderer.
Hanegraaff very specifically states that he looks forward to the bodily return of Christ.
There are many things to legitimately debate in regards to what “The Bible Answer Man” teaches, but how can that occur when the debate is founded upon lies and deceptions?
Why not read what he is saying, rather than listen to what others say that he believes?
Respectfully,
Greg Norlen
Bob B. // October 13, 2007 at 2:39 am
Doug,
I read Hanegraaff’s ‘The Apocalypse Code’ not long ago, and for someone who has been listening to Hank for many years (and Walter Martin before him), the book was a true disappointment.
While there is much I’d like to say, let me simply state that I had the distinct pleasure of having Hank in my home for Bible Study back, I believe it was, in the Fall of 2002. Without getting too specific, that night I asked him to explain his views on eschatology. He told me that he really wasn’t prepared to take a stand on any particular position, but that he had been studying the Scripture for a number of years with eschatology in mind, and that within a year or so he’d publish his views. He did say, however, that he was neither dispensational nor covenant in this theology. We talked some about the partial-preterist view, but he said that he didn’t completely agree with the partial or full-preterist point of view either.
It seemed to me that he didn’t want to get cornered into any particular position and, most commendably, he said that he did not want to come to or publish another “canned” view. Most interestingly, he and I talked about certain dispensational teachers, especially those from Dallas Theological Seminary - Walvoord and Ryrie, etc. (I am a great admirer of Ryrie and Dallas.) Of them he said, and I can still hear him saying it, “I know these men. I golf with them. They are good men, but, honestly, all they are saying (in their writings) is what they have learned from other dispensationalists.” To that, I thought - fair enough. Hank then explained that for him it was essential that he memorize the Scripture, meditate on it, and come to his own conclusions on the end times.
When Hank later released a fiction novel on the end times I was bummed. He may have actually told me that his book would be fiction, though I don’t think so. Either way, I didn’t even bother to buy it. I’m just not a fan of fiction. Then, finally, his ‘Apocalypse Code’ was released, but what a tremendous disappointment.
For a guy who said he knew the prominent dispensationalists of our day, he certainly didn’t give them or their views a respectful review. Instead, he wasted 200 pages - and several hours of my time - talking about Tim LaHaye and Co. I’m sorry, but I don’t consider LaHaye to be a scholar nor his works scholarly. Why waste ink on his material? (No offense to Mr. LaHaye.) And after reading ‘A Code’ it’s clear that Hank’s not quite a scholar either. (By the way, what theological training has he had?)
Finally, Hank demonstrated throughout the book that he lacks an in-depth knowledge of the Middle East, its history as well as the present issues - and I say this is true regardless of where you stand on the Israeli-Palenstinian issue. Bottom line: Hank really got in over his head on this one and probably even lost some admirers.
I’m not here to bash Hank. I enjoy the Bible Answer Man. I was thrilled to meet him and invite him into my home. I wish him the best in all things. However, I was very disappointed in the book and his treatment of dispensationalists.
Doug, unrelated to this: I was external SES student 2003-2004. I dropped out because of the Iraq War (I’m a naval officer; I was deployed to Iraq 2004-2006). I believe you were my advisor during that time. Anyhow, it’s nice to “meet up” with you again.
Felix // December 5, 2007 at 3:46 am
Friends:
Its true that Hank is not a leading scholar to the level of Gentry or Ice but dispensationalism has some serious questions to answer. Truth is they have flooded the mainstream with a number of claims that are very hard to sustain upon careful review. This is a truth that I live in the flesh. I attend a small dispensational seminary in Philadelphia and everything I was taught about hermeneutics must be thrown out the window when u read anything about escathology in the Bible. Thats a problem, and it must be fixed. Hank’s book tries to do that, is it all said and done? No… but its a start. I found the book to be more introductory than anything else. He calls it a “magnum-opus” which is a bit of a stretch. Is he a partial preterist? Yes he is. And to me thats the most sensible interpretation.
James Clark // December 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Very interesting comments! I have not read Hank’s book; the “Apocolyse Code” yet. I can tell you that I have really enjoyed listening to Hank’s show off and on over the past 3 years; and have been eagerly awaiting his views on eschatology (he has been building up to this release for some time now). It appears that I too may feel let down when I read it (soon) based on people’s comments on here who have stated the same premise.
One thing I want to point out is that I see it as imperitive that Hank (and hopefully more people) speaks out and ask the questions about dispensationalism/the rapture/pre-trib, etc. Why? Here’s why. For SO MANY Christians; especially new-comers to the faith, all they hear from the pulpit on the topic of eschatology is the pre-trib message….that God is not going to allow his children to suffer through the last 3.5 years of the 7 year tribulation! God won’t allow you to suffer or be persecuted during this time….don’t worry, you will be “caught up” and saved from all this pain.
Well (without sounding condescending) under this viewpoint, where will the faith of those be (who are ignorant of the fact that there are other schools of thought on the subject) if an antichrist were to emerge in our lifetime and the church in NOT raptured????
The reason I bring this up is because I know many people (Christians) who hold to the pre-trib model and won’t consider anything else. Then, when they read LaHaye’s fiction novels it pretty much solidifies there “belief.” Again, I don’t want to sound condescending, but they really border on weak minded people. It is hard to try to figure out how to help them understand that there are other possibilites to consider when they won’t listen.
I too understand that this (eschatology) is not a major issue in the message of salvation (it’s a secondary issue) but am I letting it get to me too much when I see them ascribe to something so tightly without looking into it deeper? I guess it concerns me that these people are not very likely to rightly divide the word of truth or test everything in light of what scripture has to say on other issues. Dare I say that this mentality is/can be indicative of the mindset/type of person who gets duped into following charisamtic leaders into cults?
I certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers on the topic of escatology; but I will say that the partial preterist viewpoint is very interesting; and that I am looking into it and some of R.C. Sproul’s work too.
As to Hank. Lighten up people! No one is perfect and he has done MUCH for our brothers and sisters in Christ through his BAM radio show. I could go on for a very long time about this. He is not perfect and I am certainly not turning a blind eye. Yes he should answer direct questions and not avoid them. In fact he should do what he says on his show: “if you don’t have an answer at the time, tell them that you don’t know - but that you will follow up with them soon.” He has a radio show to do. He is mixing business with scripture/our faith and I think overall he does an outstanding job at holding together a high standard. In the instance of where Doug was miffed….I think that Hank should have at least offered to get back to you in person; but better yet he should have just answered your 1st and 2nd atempt at the question.
So yes, I can see where you were/are coming from and he could have done better in this instance.
-James
Doug Beaumont // December 7, 2007 at 5:00 am
UPDATE: Thomas Howe has written a response to Hank’s book. You can order it at SES’ bookstore or download it for $3.95 at: http://www.lulu.com/content/1342051 .
preterist heresy // December 11, 2007 at 8:51 pm
The debate last night was very interesting. I thought Hank did rather well actually and the last part of the debate was worth listening to. “I AM A PRETERIST and I AM A FUTURIST. LOL
God Bless
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/
James Clark // December 12, 2007 at 11:01 am
What debate was that? I missed this one. Is there a link to it or more info?
Thx,
-James
preteristheresy // December 18, 2007 at 3:50 am
This was held on Dec. 10. I heard it on PalTalk.
Try Searching for Keywords:
Hanegraaff debate
Felix // December 20, 2007 at 1:04 am
I see the dvd of the debate will be out soon, hopefully theyll post the audio as well.
Felix // December 20, 2007 at 1:10 am
The preterist heresy site is absolute garbage. Just stupid, childish bogus crap.
Unbelievable, grow up!
Maestroh // January 16, 2008 at 11:26 am
GREG:
Maestroh,
You missed the point when you wrote; “Thank you for using the antiquated argument that TRUTH is determined by AGE. The age of an idea has NOTHING to do with its veracity.”
I said nothing about how old something was - to be the determining point about whether it was true or not. I said that if it is new it cannot be true.
MAESTROH:
You just denied the message of the Cross. It was new in 1 A.D., wasn’t it?
GREG:
Those may sound the same to you, but if you think it through, past the seducing spirit, you will see they are not the same.
MAESTROH:
Ah, I see. I point out the flaw in your argument and I must be the one listening to some ’seducing spirit,’ right? How do you know that you are not, sir?
GREG:
The reason that new revelation in regards to the Word of God cannot be true, is that the Gospel was delivered once unto all the saints, as Jude tells us. John 14 and 1 John 2:27 tell us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Of course there are many more verses to give us comfort that God opens the minds of His people tounderstand what the natural mind cannot understand.
MAESTROH:
This really has nothing to do with the situation but after your circumstantial ad hominem, why should I be surprised that you resort to obfuscation?
GREG:
In order for over 1800 years to go by before dispensational premillenial christian zionism emerges as the new gospel, it would mean that all Christians throughout that era had it wrong, for no pre-1800 Christian ever taught what has come from Darby to Ryrie.
MAESTROH:
Let’s apply that to sola fide. Nobody has yet come up with a single Christian prior to Luther who said ‘by faith alone.’ This would pretty much destroy the methodology you espouse, wouldn’t it?
GREG:
My friend, that is simply not using philosophy to make the argument, it is using the Bible’s promise to the people of God.
MAESTROH:
Yawn.
GREG:
When you claim the dispy system is the way to true interpretation of the Bible, by default you accuse nearly every brother and sister in Christ who lived prior to Darby of false teaching or false understanding.
MAESTROH:
Uh, now you’re reading things I never said. Can you show me where I said the dispy system is the true way to interpret the Bible? No, because I never said that.
GREG:
I simply cannot beleive that God allowed His people to be so ignorant for nearly 2000 years, and up pops a couple of guys that have a terrible testimony, and we folow thim like the sheep God calls us.
MAESTROH:
Ah, the old ad hominem - so you’ve now moved from ‘it wasn’t around for a long time’ to ‘there were some seedy characters that espoused dispensationalism.’
It seems to me that if your own position - whatever it is - was that biblical, you would not have to resort to these kinds of Pharisaical tactics.
Did Darby kill anyone like Calvin did? For that matter, Moses was a murderer, too. I guess we should throw out the Pentateuch, right?
And Hank Hannegraaff himself is a proven plagiarist, so I guess that destroys whatever argument he might make, too.
Right?
bumkin // February 7, 2008 at 11:02 am
Shepherd of Hermas ad 140
pseudo-ephraem 4-7th century
Gerard Sagerllo AD1260
Histroy of Brother Dolcino
Look them up and they say Darby was the first.
Straw man indeed
Felix // February 12, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Those 4 sources did not talk about the pre-trib system as we know it today. Its disingenuous garbage to say they did. Face the music, its over johnny. Pre trib movement is dead in the water.
Brian // February 14, 2008 at 1:05 am
Ah man, I didn’t know the pre trib movement was dead in the water. I guess if Felix says it, it must be true.
Anyone for post trib, mid trib? Hopefully, they’re not dead in the water either.
Felix // February 19, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Note to self: when I have no argument, “kill the messenger”.
Brian
Brian // February 23, 2008 at 2:21 am
Bang!
Greg Norlen // March 25, 2008 at 6:05 am
Maestroh,
I notice that your response is quite rude. I wonder what spirit leads you to be so caustic?
Rather than respond in Biblical context, you simply employ the language of philosophical rationalism, as if Scripture must follow the wisdom of men making up the manner in which argument or apologetic must be spoken in order to be authentic.
What is most revealing is your response to me saying; “My friend, that is simply not using philosophy to make the argument, it is using the Bible’s promise to the people of God.”
Upon reading that, you write: “Yawn”.
I feel bad for the hardness of your heart, and “I pray Lord, let this man be released from such bitterness and be filled with a heart of kindness”.
For those of you that consider Ice and Gentry to be leading scholars, you should check out the research of Dave MacPherson, as he has exposed the type of “scholarship” that they employ which has been shown that they alter the documents of antiquity from which they quote, in order to make them say something entirely different than the orignal author wrote. If that does not get your attention nothing will.
Finally Maestoh, did Calvin kill someone? Or is it actually the truth that Calvin tried to intervene in an execution? Truth matters, and slander is still slander, even if the person has been gone for centuries.
The attack against the reformation continues, and the road back to Romanism and Rabbincism is traveled by many.
In Christ,
Greg
Cbrew // April 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Geisler makes a very good point. An early writing of Revelation is crucial to Partial Preterism. Problem is that Laodecia seems to have been mostly destroyed in 60 AD by an earthquake. Just a little historical fact. The reference in Revelation of Laodecia being wealthy at the same time we know the city was devastated by an earthquake doesn’t make sense. By 90 AD it becomes more reasonable to see a revived city that was truly wealthy. For many reasons an early year (AD 60’s) seems significantly unlikely and the more commonly accepted date of 90’s AD is much more acceptable. An early date for Revelation (60 AD) just looks like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. But it must be done for Partial Prets because it’s crucial to their arguments.
Concerning Hank, the guy really comes off as someone with an ego problem. I notice how he justifies what he says by showing how he predicted the Y2K situation a bust. Well I remember working all night because the bank I worked at was that worried about Y2K being a problem. A lot of money was spent trying to prevent any possible problems from Y2K.
My point, Hank H tries to continually match all Y2K hype with end times teachings when in reality the secular world that took it very seriously. Anyhow, how does Hank’s perception on computer glitches have any bearing on being the final word on End Times interpretation?
Hank might have a point, but he clearly took on a confrontational and self serving approach to the whole issue. He really comes off as someone who has dropped objectivity.
Finally I wonder what the motivation is to intentionally use a show/organization (that he did not found but was entrusted with) that was originally about a united Christian front combating cults and pseudo-Christian movements and turn it into the Hank’s Doctrines hour. It’s beginning to look like a bizzare turn of events where Hank becomes the very thing he has worked so hard to fight against. Does CRI have any real accountability or is this just Hank’s place? I don’t think that’s what CRI’s original intention was. Just change the show to “Hank’s hour”. To be honest.
Doug Beaumont // April 11, 2008 at 9:13 pm
For a bit more consideration on the date issue see http://www.dougbeaumont.org/SoulDevice/proph_revdate.html
BTW, I think you are very perceptive with regard to the new direction of CRI. I know some insiders and from what they tell me it is the Hank show for sure (the journal is still very good, but it is not run out of NC). As to titles, I like “CRI: The Christian Research Infomercial”!
RobAnn // May 8, 2008 at 8:10 am
I’ve been reading the comments and am truly disappointed with some of the attitudes I’ve encountered. The fact is that no one knows exactly what will happen and to hold too closely to ANY view will lead to problems if things happen differently. I appreciate Hank writing his book because, although it doesn’t answer all my questions, it opened my eyes to something other than the dispensational model which is ALL I’ve ever heard. He clearly states in the book that he doesn’t want to answer all the questions but encourages us to learn from the Scriptures and what they meant to the first century audience to whom they were addressed. Who cares whether he is a this-erist or a that-erist? I know that there is much about the Scriptures I don’t understand, but I have a right and a responsibility to question and test scholars and other Biblical teachers. I have a friend who has Palestinian friends who struggle with the All- Israel-all-the-time beliefs of some teachers. We have to think with more than a Western mindset and remember that Jesus died for people from ALL ethnicities. As believers, we are all Sons of Abraham - THAT IS SCRIPTURAL! The Rapture will happen when GOD says it will happen, not before or after. He must be saddened by all of us when we argue. If you don’t like Hank, don’t listen to him. If you’re a “dispy” be prepared that you might be wrong. I would rather be prepared to live through the Tribulation (if there is one) than be shocked to find myself in the midst of it.
Just some thoughts from a still-learning housewife.
Greg Norlen // May 11, 2008 at 1:43 am
For those that want to do more research on the facts behind the emergence of Dispensational Premillenial theology and the Christian Zionist movement it has spawned, while learning more about the historic rendering of the faith, here are some sources to google. There is a biographical book out by Joesph Canfield called “The Incredible Scofield”. There are the writings of Dave MacPherson. The writings of Stephen Sizer. The Open Letter from Knox Seminary’s Wittenberg Door. The response from Sam Waldron to John MacArthur diatribe that Calvinism should be Premill at the 07 Shepherds conference. The writings of Phillip Mauro on Dispensationalism. J. Greshan Machan’s classic work “Liberalism and Christianity”. RC Sproul’s “The Last Days According to Jesus”. And J. I. Packer’s translation of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, which is his respond to the Diatribe of Erasmus. Just google em. After reading RobAnn’s comment, I could not agree more with her. The tone and manner of some comments is really disappointing. The main reason that the Dispensational system is falling apart is that it inherently denies the work of Christ, and when exposed to light, the darkness flees. We have seen the system go from classic, to revised, to progressive, as it is forced to move closer and closer to the Covenant position as it errors are made so evident. Historic Christianity teaches that Christ rebuilt the tabernacle of David, that Christ sits on the throne of David, that Christ fulfilled all of God’s promises to remember Israel, that the Kingdom began when Christ said it was “at hand”. Many, not all of the Dispensationalists have denied those truths. There is a major difference bewtween the premillenial teaching of dispensationalism, and historic premillenial teaching. And there is a reason why the historic premill teaching was tossed out of the early church. It was shown to be error. As early as the late 200’s AD, there is writing from Dinonysius in which he refers to those who came in bringing a scism, (division) by trying to teach premillenialism. We find a bunch of premill writing from Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, etc., all of them important contributors to the faith in other areas. By the time Augustine was finished with his apologetic against it, the emmergence of premill is pretty much gone until it emerged again nearly 1500 years later. During that time the church is mostly ammillenial. So that raises a question, why were some of the early church fathers premill if it is errant? If one takes a bit of time to search it down, you will find that the early church premill writers were the original Replacement Theologist. (Today the Dispy’s like to accuse the Covenant teachers of being Replacement Theologians, but it is a mischaracterization) The early premill teachers were known as chilasts and were laying claim that the church inherited all the blessings of Israel. (An accurate understanding of the faith is that the Israel of God continued on in rebirth made up of both Gentile and Jew, and true to the prophesy in Isaiah, God began to call His people by a new name, Christians) At the time of the early premill writings, the books of the Bible had not yet been cannonized as they are today. It seems that the pre mill writers were not drawing from the Bible itself, but instead mistook non-canonical Jewish books as authoritatitve, and they were simply claiming the prophetic interpretations contained in those writings to be applicable to the church. In other words, they were taking 1st century non Christian rabbinical teaching and claiming it as church doctrine. There were about four books they drew from, and from memory, and I might be mesing this up, it was 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Baruch, and …….. cannot remember 4th book. Prior to the destruction of Israel, the Tradition of the Elders (which Christ condemned in Matthew 15) was an oral teaching called the mishnah. Sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem it was then written into the Talmud. Two versions. The Jerusalem and the Babylonian. The latter being the most recognized. It is from these traditions and teachings that we get the concept of the Messiah coming to rule for a period of time (1000 yrs) on this natural earth, in a natural form in a distinctively Jewish kingdom in which the Jews rule the world alongside of Christ. When Jesus did not fit that picture, He was crucified. Now also we find that Judaism is condemned Biblically, (Galatians) because is it rooted in self sanctification, self justification, self atonement, etc. Authentic Christianity, and being an authentic Jew in God’s econmomy is based upon faith, not DNA, and not works, it is based upon having a circumcized spirit. The dispy system is rooted in a Judiaizing concept, in that the Bible is carved up into 7 time slots in which God judges man upon whether or not man has performed according to the rule of that time slot. This is inherently hyper Arminian and Pelagian, as it makes man the determiner of his desitny by his works, and denies Sovereign Grace. With the advent of Dispensational Premillenialism, we are simply getting the re-generated, re-cycled teachings of 1st century Judaism, because the prophetic interpretations contained in the dispy system are just what the Pharisees used to conclude that Jesus was not the Messiah. I would recommend you google the Pretersit Archive to find a lot of information that puts forth both sides of the argument. Also, Steve Gregg’s book “Four Views to Revelation” gives a great comparision to the four major ways that the Book of Revelation has been understood throughout history. I have one more thing to say about the consequences of Dispensationalism, which is actually Zionism. Nothing in the world today is a greater hinderance to bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, than to tell Jewish people that they can be saved because they are Jewish so they are God’s “chosen”, or to tell the Muslim world that the Jews need to blow up the Dome of the Rock (2nd most holy shrine in Islam) in order to rebuild the temple God destroyed, (so the Jews can reinstitute the sacirfices) and that the Muslims must give up all the land they occupy from the Euphrates in Iraq to the Nile in Egypt. This has a pretty good result in stirring up a hornets nest of hate and the desire to go to war with the Muslim people. The missionary movment in the Muslim world is suffering terribly, all missionairies are in constant danger, and in Israel, there are many Palestinian Christians that are displaced people in their own land, because they non-Jew. Dispensationalism may get the person of Christ correct, but because of the abherrant manner in which the work of Christ is viewed, it is ant-christ through and through. Praise God from whom all blessing flow.
Felix // July 11, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Also see:
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/
Amillennialism is much more biblically balanced then Hank’s preterism with a different name (e2).
Free download on the right (scroll down)
Leave a Comment