Breaking News
Dr. Thomas Ice has written a book review for the National Liberty Journal:
Hank Hanegraaff Calls Tim LaHaye a Racist and a Blasphemer
by Thomas Ice
In his new book entitled The Apocalypse Code, [i] Hank Hanegraaff, host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast, selects Tim LaHaye as his prime target in his sub-Christian attack on Tim LaHaye and other Bible prophecy advocates. Strangely, Hanegraaff is known for often quoting the famous maxim: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” [ii] So where is the liberty and charity in practice that he advocates in theory? Charity and liberty towards those he disagrees with is totally absent in Hanegraaff’s new book. It is one thing to disagree with another Christian (Hanegraaff and any other Christian has a right to voice their disagreement with other Christians), but to call his fellow brother in Christ a racist[iii] and a blasphemer [iv] because he advocates a different view of Bible prophecy goes well beyond the pale.
Hanegraaff contends that his book is about “Exegetical Eschatology to underscore that above all else I am deeply committed to a proper method of biblical interpretation rather than to any particular model of eschatology.” [v] If that is his goal then he has fallen far short of the mark! Hanegraaff’s proposed interpretative approaches, if implemented, would send the church back to the Dark Ages hermeneutically. The great majority of the book is a rant against dispensationalism in general and Tim LaHaye in particular. There is precious little actual exegesis, if any at all, to support his preterist-idealist eschatology, however, there are great quantities of some of the most vicious invective against LaHaye and many other Bible prophecy teachers that I have ever read in print.
This book is not only filled with factual error throughout, but teaches that most Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled (a preterist viewpoint), Nero was the beast of Revelation (i.e., the antichrist), and the tribulation has already happened. Hanegraaff is certainly no lover of Israel since he teaches that God divorced Israel (he needs to read the end of Hosea) and married the church, supports the pro-Palestinian claims against Israel, and even accuses Israel of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Hanegraaff embraces and argues for replacement theology and many other viewpoints that are detrimental to sound Bible study and interpretation. Not surprisingly, I do not recommend this book, unless one is looking for an example of how not to study the Bible for all its worth.
[i] Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says About The End Times and Why It Matters Today (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 300 pages.
[ii] Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer, The Last Disciple (Wheaton: Tyndale, 2004), p. 395.
[iii] Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code, pp. xx–xxiii.
[iv] Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code, pp. 189, 225.
[v] Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code, p. 2.
Reprinted with permission, The National Liberty Journal, May 2007 edition
posted by Jill Martin Rische at 9:41 AM
21 Comments:
Haven't read HH's new book, but isn't "Hank calls Tim a blasphemer" similar to "Jill calls Craig a blasphemer"?
No surprise here.
I have dealt locally with Neo-Reformers / Preterists. They tend to draw the line in the sand and many unnecessary divisions in the Body Christian are made by these malcontents. Many bad-mouthing the very pastors that were tools of the Holy Spirit in getting their ingrate carcasses saved.
God help us!
ahmed,
Perhaps you should read the book and post when you're done.
:)
Jill
john,
Have to agree with you on the Preterist spirit.
"ingrate carcasses" :)
Jill, I appreciate the work you and your husband do. Your father was a very good man who knew the scriptures well.
With regard to Hank, I am not surprised by his views on the end times. I am amazed by his lack of biblical knowledge of hermenutics and exegesis. I have e mailed CRI many times to find out Hank's eductional bio only to be ignored.
Keep up the good work.
Fred
Equally troubling are H.H.'s thoughts on hell and demonology. Although I've not read his comments in print on these two subjects, his on-air comments have been unorthodox.
IMHO, H.H. is in the same class of counter-cult/apologetics "experts" as Jon Trott, Eric Pement ( a defender of JPUSA,whose own wife, Barb, spent two weeks at Wellspring a few years ago to recover from her experiences at JPUSA), Texe Marrs, Bob Larson, and Ole Anthony ( who was exposed by Wendy Duncan in her book "I Can't Hear God Anymore" as a cult leader himself.)
Ahmed wrote: "...isn't "Hank calls Tim a blasphemer" similar to "Jill calls Craig a blasphemer"?
No. HH wrote a whole book in defense of his biblical view. He may be wrong. However, what we can say about Hank is - he did his homework. He actually did the work, got his hands dirty and defended his position with arguments referenced to multiple scripture passages, taking into account how one passage of scripture comes to bear on others.
We can disagree with HH, on the basis that his arguments are flawed, his exegesis is bad and his hermeneutics are misplaced. However we are not at liberty to do the same with Jill. She has given us none of those things. She has simply given us an assertion and (1) passage from Scripture. Why that scripture applies to Craig Hazen's interaction with the LDS leadership on the night of 11/14/04 remains a mystery of her mind. Therefore it remains safely off limits to the rational inquiry of her readers.
Many readers have requested further explanation from Jill about her charge against Craig. To this day, she has yet to offer anything in response but emotional ranting and censorship of her blog.....when the questions were coming in faster then she could dodge them. In doing so, Jill's actions are communicating her message loud and clear; Jill speaks for God here. Which is curiously the very definition of blasphemy.
Hank my be wrong, but he isn't so presumptuous to not show us how he got there.
Regards,
John
Jill,
Have you read HH's book?
Ahmed,
No, to answer your question.
There is no comparison between Craig Hazen and Tim Lahaye in "methodologies" of evangelism. Hank has mistakenly accused Tim Lahaye without sound reason; Jill has not been mistaken about Craig's methodology, as the documentation shows. She has not made personal attacks, but she has just measured what he has said publicly against Scripture. There is a big difference.
Jeff,
I have not read the book by Hank, but I don't have to, as I have endured a whole entire day of him teaching on this topic (at a conference last October at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, TN where he slandered Tim LaHaye time and time again from the podium). There was no rule against taping, so I taped it, and I have the whole thing on CD. Therfore, I know that Dr. Ice is correct, having heard all of this directly from Hank's mouth live. Jill also has the taping, so it is not necessary for someone to read the book to be able to believe this review if the person has heard all of this directly from a live performance of Hank on stage.
Furthermore, there should be no accusation towards Jill for posting a review of a book whether or not she has read it! She has a right to post a review of a book whether she has read it or not.
I am a neo-Reformer as johnd calls us.
Pastors that hold to dispensationalism has attacked amillennialism which I hold to for years now, now Hank writes a book and says that Tim LaHaye, is teaching heresy, as I believe what Hank is teaching here,because my church also enbraces the very thing he is saying in his book, I also heard Hank say, everyone has the right to teach what they believe, what LaHaye teaches he believes, because I do not agree, has nothing to do with the kind of person he is, also Tim LaHaye has taken shots at Hank, so this is possibly the reason, Hank references LaHaye, when he could have went after many dispensationalist teachers out there. I agree with Hank,and what he says in that book, I also support CRI, finacially.
Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, Dave Hunt, Larry Spargimino, and others have called amillennialists believing evil doctrine, they have called us anti-semetic, they question our salvation which isn't an issue at all. They have said we are not going to receive the crown of righteousness, which is silly because we most assuradly are watching and waiting for Jesus return.
No one should bad mouth anyone, both dispensationalists and amillennialists are guilty of it, and you might as well add post-trib, pre-wrath, mid-trib, we are called to witness to the lost and evangelize, but doctrinal beliefs taught by different denonimations, will forever divide Christianity.
The statement made by johnd, is totally uncalled for, and many dispensationalists bad mouth the very pastors were the toools of the Holy Spirit getting them saved,what we are seeing is people that condemn others, when in Christ there is no condemnation.
We all are guilty, we all need to repent
Well said, Dwayna.
JohnD
HHH slithered into his position at CRI (imho and the evidence "seems" to support). CRI and TBAM had built up a good reputation in the Christian community under WM. Whether or not they realize it, people who defend HHH in places like this blog are either defending the lingering reputation of CRI that HHH antics have not yet demised or are deceived by HHH's chicane "contributions" to the faith. Look beneath the surface at HHH and you will not like what you find. IMHO. I know I did not.
Dwayna:
The reason I asked Jill if she read the book, because she stated to ahmed "Perhaps you should read the book and post when you're done."
If one was to be consistent, Jill should not post on it either until she reads the books.
I would recommend the following page on these issues.
On March 27, a friend of mine contacted me upset about H3's new book. She liked his show but was getting confused. And after listening to the propaganda piece for Hank's pocket (see H3, I can do those silly little memory games, too) - the first show archived - I will not be spending $22 or one red cent on H3. Here's what I learned during that one hour.
1) Dispensationalists are 'racists' and 'anti-Semitic'
2) Those that hold to the dispensational worldview are 'naive evangelicals' (I wonder how many lambs H3 has sacrificed today?)
3) The antidote to "Left Behind," Tim LaHaye, and Hal Lindsey is NOT the Bible - it's reading Bible with H3's new book.
That last sounds about as arrogant as C.T. Russell claiming one needed JW books to understand the Bible.
I'm presently a student at Dallas Seminary; I do not know where I fall eschatologically. But H3 has picked a straw man of dipsensationalism and pounded it to pieces. I'd like to see him come down to DTS at a chapel service where he can 'impress' the rest of us NT majors with his 'E2 exegesis.' I'm sure Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, Harold Hoehner, and Buist Fanning are just shaking in their boots at the prospect of the untrained H3 showing them up.
But then again - Hank Hanegraaff speaking to Dallas Theological Seminary would be like inviting the National Enquirer to a board meeting of the Wall Street Journal.
(Note: NOT ONE SINGLE exegesis on March 27. You have to pay for that. Perhaps Hank Tetzel is a better name for him).
This post has been removed by the author.
They tend to draw the line in the sand and many unnecessary divisions in the Body Christian are made by these malcontents. Many bad-mouthing the very pastors that were tools of the Holy Spirit in getting their ingrate carcasses saved.
A very interesting comment. I am reformed and not a disp. and hold to an Amil. perspective. Your comment is out in left field. If you know anything, eschatogy (in the sence we are talking about here)) is not a real driving force within reformed (new or old) circles. You mention neo-preterist...perhaps you could name some of these men and give some example of what your are talking about.
My experience, I'm not sure how yours could differ, is that it is the Disp. camp that divides the body of Christ. Reason being, eschatology is the acid test for a lot of people. I give you the Bible college movement as an example (I can be more specific).
Dwayna,
Instead of just agreeing with the conclusions that Ice has come to regarding HH's book, how bout you offer some reasons why you thing Ice is correct in his assesment?
I just read in the introduction to Hank H's new book, linking LaHaye with racism and then given examples of Jewish atrocities in the 1940's. The implication is that LaHaye most likely agrees with Jewish Zionism and the terrorism that was employed then.
I really regret Hank using this type of rhetoric just because he doesn't hold the same eschatological view as LaHaye. Hank said so often on his program that he was not a student of prophecy and was not in a position to teach on it. So, he seems to have grabbed hold of ideas put forth by a New Testament scholar from Wheaton and is running with them. Thanks for letting me comment; I needed to vent.
johnd speaks of "alcontents...bad-mouthing...tools of the Holy Spirit [who were instrumental ] in getting their ingrate carcasses saved. John Owen, the prince of puritan divines, John Gill the famous Baptist theologian and denfender of salvation by grace alone, and John Lightfoot were all partial preterists. I am not a big fan of h3 and have not read his book. THE PAROUSIA by James Stuart Russel or THE LAST DAY ACCORDING TO JESUS by Dr.RC Sproul or even LAST DAYS MADNESS by Gary Demar would be better books. As to someone debating at Dalas Theological Seminary maybe the person should watch the debate between Dr. Tommy Ice and Gary Demar on the subject. Even a cursory reading of our Lord's parables in Matthew 21-22 should reveal the hstlot to be burned was Jerusalem or the Jews who rejected their messiah. NOT the Jews in general. They loudly told Pilate that they had no king but Ceasar. "But when the king heard about it, he was furious, and sent out his armies,destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." This did indeed happen in AD70.There are 2 Jerusalems according to Paul in Galastians 4:21-31 should be read carefully and prayerfully. Then consider Jesus statement as He wept over Jerusalem and called her "the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her" in Mattew 23:37 which reminds us of His parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21:33-40 In the 45th verse we read, "Now when the chief preists and Pharisees heard His parables, they percieved He was speaking of them." The great Harlot of the Apocalypse was "drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus"(Rev 17:6) According to dispensational theology, there have been many dispensations in which various different methods of salvation were used for mankind. No one is saved in one dispensation by the methods used in a former. It follows logically that if we Christians are saved by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this dispensation ends at the rapture, those who are "left behind" will be in a diferent dispensation and forced to be saved by a diferent method. How will they be saved? The chillingly heretical answer can be read in dispensational books. They will be saved by refusing the mark of the beast. Another gospel?
HH says there is no future National "Isrul" and that the land of Palistine has no Divine binding covenant.
There are at least two New Testament verses which refute this postion:
Luke 21:24: And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Romans 11:25: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
According to HH, there is no basis upon which to distinguish Jews and Gentiles and that such distinctions are discriminatory.
Christians must be just as beloved for the father's sakes and any Jew could be. Therefore, if, as concerning the Gospel they are enemies for our sakes, as touching the election they still must be enemies for our sakes. But Paul says otherwise.
Read Deuteronomy 28 and 30 (and many others) to supply the background music for these two verses.
These are to be read and interpreted in the light of what Scripture says and not my imagination.
Michael.
The Unity, Liberty, Charity slogan is often quoted by Masonic Christians. This is because it is a Masonic statement and has nothing to do with Christianity.
If the Church is true Israel, the lowest Gentile is as beloved for the fathers' sakes as is the most devout Jew.
But who, as touching the election, are beloved for the fathers' sakes?
None other than those who, as concerning the gospel, are enemies for your sakes.
Romans 11:28
Post a Comment
<< Home