Haanegraff vs. LaHaye

I have never read a book by Hank, but I have a feeling if he is taken a big SHOT at Tim I will not agree with much of what Hank beliefs, depending on what shots he took at Tim.

If I am not mistaken, isn't he under the impression that everything that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse as well as what John wrote about in Revelation, has already taken place? I could have sworn I heard on his show about three nights ago he said that. Someone want to set me straight.

 

I bought the book on sale. But haven't gotten to it as yet. Don't know if I will, but if this thread gets interesting then maybe I will.

 

dan,

My understanding is that Hannagraf is what is termed a "pretetist." Much of those beliefs are based on the "allegorization" of scripture rather than the "literal" -- what he calls "wooden literal." Example: Nero being the AntiChrist.

As you read, please be careful! The best rule of interpretation is "if the literal sense makes good sense seek no other sense." Over-allegorizing leads to lots of errors!

skypair

 

I have had the honor of seeing both LaHaye and Hanegraaff speak in person. LaHaye twice, Hanegraaff once. Hanegraaff spoke on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is a fine public speaker. He has put a lot of Scripture to memory and can quote large chunks of Scripture off the top of his head. Hanegraaff is also a very good author. LaHaye is not a good public speaker at all. His sermons are somewhat chunky (bit by bit) with little flow. His non-fictional writings are good but could be better. His fictional works, well, stink.

Having said that my position is pre-tribulational, pre-millennial, dispensational. I do not agree with Hanegraaff's position. I am sure that Hanegraaff's book, and any speech or lesson he has given on this topic, is very convincing. What troubles me is that just a few years ago, I would say in the late 90s, Hanegraaff said he had not studied Revelation in any detail. His position seems to have developed rather quickly. Now that does not mean, nor does it imply, that Hanegraaff is wrong. It is just an observation that does cause me some concern.

 

I was converted under Tim's ministry in 1959 and he was my pastor for years. IMO, he then was a very good preacher, but not a good exegete or theologian. He had then only a BA from BJU.

Never read any of Tim's novels.

Never read Hank.

I lean toward post trib pre mill but am undecided .

I think one of the better reads on the subject is Three Views on the Rapture by Archer (midtrib), Feinberg (pretrib) , and Moo(post trib)...three, well-educated "experts" at the, then, SAME school .

 

I especially love Moo.

 

1. A pastor friend is who told me about the book, so I went and got it on sale.

2. He was rather impress with Hanegraaff's findings.

 

Almost all the late date advocates directly or indirectly base thiet view on one statement by Irenaus. Here is the statement:

Quote from Revelation: “Four Views"

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Here are some problems with the above passage:

"The meaning of Irenaeus' statement has been debated. What was seen toward the end of Domition's reign? Was it the vision which John "beheld"? or was it the apostle himself, who was "seen... face to face" by those who testify? The phrase "that was seen..." may be a corruption of an original that read, "He was seen..." If this is true, then it only proves that John lived into the reign of Domition, though he may have written the Apocalypse much earlier." (Revelation, p.17)

"Those who originally translated Irenaeus' work into English complained of the poor condition of the manuscript evidence for his work. They wrote: 'The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of a greater portion of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of the copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, in both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain." (Revelation, p.17-18)

"Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation, p.18)

"Earlier in the passage, Irenaeus refers to "all the.. ancient copies" of Revelation. This presupposes that that the book had been around a good long while before this statement was written. If there were "ancient copies," was not the original more ancient still? Yet, in Irenaeus estimation, the time of Domition's reign was not considered to have been very ancient history, for he speaks of it as "almost in our day." How could Irenaeus speak of ancient copies" of a work the original of which has been written "almost" in his own time?" (Revelation, p.18)

"With reference to his mention of Domition's reign, there are grounds for believing that Irenaeus was speaking of the time of John's last being seen by the brethren, rather than the time of John's having seen the apocalyptic vision." (Revelation, p.18)


Here is what FW Farrar says:

"all the earliest Christian writers on the Apocalypse, from Irenaeus down to Victorious of Pettau and Commodian in the fourth, and Andreas in the fifth, and St. Beatus in the eighth century, connect Nero, or some Roman emperor, with the Apocalyptic Beast ." (The Early Days of Christianity p.541)

"We cannot accept a dubious expression by the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero." (The Early Days of Christianity vol. ii., p.186)

If interested in a book on the dating of Revelation from both the early and late date evidences I recommend "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry.

If you wonder why Hank came to the preterist side, read Gary DeMar's book "Last Days Madness" which came out in 1989. I only wish I had known of it then. Better late than never I guess.

 

**Moderator note**

This thread was intentionally moved to the Books and Publications forum

The Moderator judged that there was no theology being debated---that the thread was a "critique" of two different authors and their works.

Bro. David
Moderator

Carry on from here

 

When I first saw the full preterist position expounded here by Grasshopper and a couple of others years ago, I too rejectex it as to "allegorical", especially regarding Christ's "appearance" and the rapture/resurrection. But then when I saw Ed Stevens' theory of an AD70 rapture, and Dave Green's citing of Josephus on a visible appearance of Christ, the whole idea then became more probable, and even likely. A lot of scriptural statements make more sense when viewd from that perspective, and we have contextualized them all to us, thousands of years later, raining endless paradoxes, like the neverending OSAS debate. (Preterism would solve that by saying since the NT readers wefre still partly under the OC as long as the Temple stood, that's why they were told they had to persevere to be saved, and the "race" they were in did lok like it was toward something in their lifetime).

So their could still be a future "dual fulfillment", but as time plugs on, sometimes I don't know. We always contextualize and interpret what is going on as "it", but if the conditions in the Middle Ages weren't "it", I don't know why anything else would be.

 

It is amazing to me to hear the man who is SO right on the other issues come out so contrary on this one issue. I started reading one of his books on the drift of Christianity into unorthodoxy and occult -- it was a bit ponderous to me.

There is one other thing that bothers me --- when I listen to him, he sounds like he is demeaning everyone else. And I mean everyone else including those who agree with him. That said, I could listen to him all day and not find too much wrong.

LaHaye strikes me as a man who was a lot into family ministry when he took up his rather shallow fictional works. I think his later works like "Encyclopedia of the End Times" (or some such -- I have it somewhere, just too lazy to get up -- "Charting the End Times," etc. NONFICTION with many contributors you would recognize are excellent!

skypair

 

Question

Isn't the fact that in Left Behind people who heard the gospel before the rapture get saved after it occurs. I do not see a scriptural basis for this and so I did not continue to read it. Wouldn't it make the story null and void based on scrpiture itself. It is giving false hope to those who feel they can hear the gospel or read the book even, but wait to get saved until the rapture. The Bible says they will believe a lie,correct?

 

It is the people who had not rejected the gospel nor accepted after the rapture can still be saved after the rapture occurs. Those already rejected it will not receive it apparently after the rapture and entrance of the Anti-Christ.

The bible say they will believe the lie, AFTER they have rejected the truth.

The "Wicked" whom the Lord will consume with spirit of His mouth and the brightness of His 'coming', is a direct reference to the Anti-Christ. But the Anti-Christ will decieve with all manner of deception/lies, false signs and lieing wonders just as Satan himself. (which according to Revelation Satan gives the AC his power and authority- so is it any wonder the AC will be after or in like manner of Satans own works)
But here is the part you that establishes your quote in verse 11 and that is verse 10 in the later half. BECAUSE 'they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved". They believe the lie because they rejected the truth that could have saved them.
Then it states they believed the lie, and it was for THIS cause (rejection of the truth) that God will send them a strong delusion that they will beleive (continue believing) the lie that they might be damned who did not believe the truth.

 

I am about half way through Hank's book. So far what he seems to be pushing the most is that one ought to take thier theology from scripture and not read their theology into scripture. I can agree with that.

He's also pretty strong on not being a preterist.