Christians United for Israel

n how's John Hagee's understanding of the Bible "flawed"?

 

I can share a couple of ways that I see his view being flawed...

He is a pentecostal
He is a prosperity theologian
He believes in dual covenant theology when it comes to the church and Israel.

Could be more...but those are the ones Im aware of.

Bro Tony

 

I have been saying this for a long time. I wonder why nobody has seemed to figure this out till now.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Thx, Bro Tony. i'd suppose that the 3rd instance is pertinent here, that of his Dual Covenant.

now, i wonder how Zionism n Dual Covenant intersect--perhaps both are flawed, but in what way precisely?

just returning to the OP: "Fortunately, one can support the country of Israel without being a part of this group, Christians United for Israel, with a flawed understanding of the Bible and led by John Hagee."

 

http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/sp160202.htm

http://www.cephas-library.com/replacement_theology/replacement_theology_history.html

 

Question: Why do most conservative Christians always support Israel so very strongly (almost without question) rather than having a more balanced view between the Arab countries and Israel, especially when there are far more Arabic Christians than Christians in Israel???

 

How can you say "Flawed understanding of the Bible" ?

Do you believe this Bible ?

Genesis 15:18-21
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites

We don't need John Hagee, but the Bible is enough.

If you don't believe the above shown Bible, then you have the flawed understanding of Bible.

 

can't speak for John Hagee, but these questions might be helpful:

1. was realisation of the covenant of the land unconditional? might be helpful to list the conditions in the Torah for a start.

2. was the realisation of the land covenant historically continuous? if not, why not?

3. when is the fulfilment of OT promises of national Israel's return to the land in glory n peace under their Messiah? was it in 1948? if not, when?
​

i don't think anyone's "disbelieving this Bible." :thumbsup:

 

actually, the doctrine may trace a little further back, to the apostolic era (highlights added):

i wonder how our learned forummers wld understand the parts put in bold.

perhaps the misunderstanding lies in the nature of the replacement, that it involves Christians getting to occupy the land of Palestine/Israel: "the Jews have been replaced by the Christians in God’s favour and so all God’s promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity." perhaps the idea of replacement isn't a simple one-for-one exchange, such that Christians can march into Haifa or Gilo with flags to plant their own "settlements." some questions to consider in this regard:

1. since national Israel's part involves spiritual n real estate blessings, does their "rejection" involve forfeiture of both? what do words like broken off, cut off, loss, n rejection entail? what abt terms like fullness, acceptance, reconciliation, will be grafted in?

2. since the church's part involves (until the Millennium, if u're Premill) only spiritual blessings, shdn't Christians eschew fiddling in Mideast politics in terms of supporting one side over another regarding occupying the Land?

3. cld it be that the church's role (n spiritual legacy) for this time n age is to fulfil the Gt Commission: i.e. make disciples of all nations by first baptising them n then teaching them to obey Christ? did Christ command us to send millions of dollars for Jewish relocation or to campaign in Washington for the State of Israel? why didn't Christ n Peter n Paul go around supporting national Israel the way today's "Christian Zionists" do?
​

i'd be v interested to know how various people handle Romans 11.

 

I agree. Sometimes I think way too much is emphasized on this - perhaps encouraged by the very popular Left Behind series.

Also, there are some other views of the end times as well. I tend to be amill too (also partial preteristic - though I cannot agree with the full preterism approach).