Hank Hanegraaff’s false theology and questionable character

Hank Hanegraaff of CRI has a staff that gets him answers. That makes him credible on many biblical topics but when Hank Hanegraaff himself steps out in certain areas of theology he displays a basic lack of biblical understanding. We should not be surprised that mockers like Hank Hanegraaff would come against those who declare the soon coming of Jesus, Bible prophecy declares they will. The questionable character issues are well known and they can easily be found with any keyword search on his name on Google.

Here is an excerpt of an article by Jan Markel of Olivetreeviews.org about Hank Hanegraaff’s attack on Dispensational Premillennial Theology (article was posted on Worldview Weekend).

ANSWERING “THE BIBLE ANSWERMAN” Three years ago Hank decided to get on the eschatology bandwagon for himself. He began a series of fiction on his eschatology: Preterism. That belief says that all or most of end-time events transpired in 70 AD. Nero was the Antichrist. The Tribulation was the persecution of Christians. Hank and most “partial Preterists” still believe in the Second Coming. “Full Preterists” believe Christ returned “in spirit” in 70 AD. Not much fanfare for the King of Kings back then!

Now many are taking Hanegraaff to task for not only false theology but for outrageous comments on air and in his book, “Apocalypse Code” as well as his fiction series with co-author Sigmund Brouwer. Dr. Thomas Ice, who serves on this ministry’s “board of reference” says, “The great majority of the book (Apocalypse Code) is a rant against Hanegraaff’s distorted view of 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 tirades against LaHaye and many other Bible prophecy teachers that I have ever read in print.” This can be found on the Web site of the Pre-Trib Research Institute, www.pre-trib.org.”

Post script editor note: the name of the book in the above excerpt was corrected. Markell uses the name “Apocalypse Countdown” in her article the book name is actually “Apocalypse Code”

Check  this later post of mine for links to Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Thomas Ice review of Hanegraaff’s “Apocalypse Code”

Print Friendly

 Don Koenig founded www.thepropheticyears.com website in 1999 after almost thirty years of independent study on the Bible and learning from many astute teachers within Christendom. Don created his website to write about Bible prophecy, biblical discernment and his Christian worldviews. Don wrote a free Revelation commentary ebook in 2004 named "The Revelation of Jesus Christ Through The Ages". The World and Church and Bible Prophecy section of this website was started in 2007.


67 thoughts on “Hank Hanegraaff’s false theology and questionable character

  1. Obviously you’ve never read the fantastic book, “The Apocalypse Code” by Hank Hanegraaff. The irony is that Tommy Ice who believes heresy; specifically he believes in re-instituted temple sacrifices during Christ’s supposed millennial reign.

  2. Obviously you have never read why Tommy Ice believes there will be temple sacrifice during the millennial reign. It is because Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 clearly indicates that there will be temple sacrifice in the millennial reign. You might do some research as to why there is temple sacrifice in the millennium before you throw stones and imply something that Ice never says. It is not heresy to tell the truth but to redefine what God said through His prophets to subjective allegory like Hanegraaff does in order to make it comply with his Preterist Theology can only be defined as heresy.

  3. Glad I stumbled onto your blog. I have tried plowing my way through HH”s The Apocalypse Code” and some of it almost makes sense, in a distorted sort of way. But his excoriation of Tim LaHaye I find unaccepable in a Christian. I am pretrib and will probably remain so. I’ve listened to many of Hanks’s programs and have found his delivery and some of his doctrine a little strange even though I agree with him on the Mormon issue. Thank you for your ministry. God bless.

  4. Hank Hanegraaff has said that it would be very wrong if GOD punished people if all they were doing is acting on the free will that he gave them.First of all he says I THINK or I FEEL. The scriptures are not subject to mans opinion but the will of GOD. If a person had a freewill choice to do right or do wrong,and doing wrong (under these circumstances) has no consequences then why did CHRIST die.If you use his logic then nobody should ever be punished and everyone is going to heaven. This reasoning even contradicts itself in his critisizm of universalism.Do not fall for his lies because he is well spoken of and articulate.Satan too can do the same things and mix falsehood with truth to ensnare the masses as he will in the end times.

  5. Yeah, many national Christians leaders are speaking out of both sides of their mouth about many things these days. It is hard for leaders to be consistent on biblical concepts when they incorporate various heresies as their foundation to interpret scripture and embrace world views that contract what God said.

  6. I used to listen to “The Bible Answer Man” until he finally revealed his escatology. Now when I hear him he is peddling one of HIS resources. I find it best to study the Bible for myself. Anyone can read and understand the Word of God with the leading of the Holy Spirit. Yes there are some very difficult to understand passages so stick with what you do understand and trust the Lord to give wisdom for the rest in time.

  7. What is so hard to understand the statements made by John as ” what must soon take place “(REV. 1:1)or ” because the time is near”(REV. 1:2). The first verse in Revelation isn’t talking to some future distant audience some 100 or 2000 years from the statements being made by John. He is surly taking to a first century audience. Im so glad I moved on from dispensationalism. Even then so, Please come Lord!!!

  8. Have you seen the things written in Revelation literally come to pass at all? Obviously you are making most of it allegory if you think the book is talking about spiritual events. So since that is the case, why do you then just take the one passage you want literally? Let’s be consistent.

    I guess you meant Rev 1:3 but that actually says the time is at hand.
    The first versus in Revelation are obviously talking to the whole Church which you and I are still part of. Unless you want to deny that God wrote that for you and I and the rest of the Church to know, you have to accept that fact.

    What God was showing John would happen quickly and it was at hand because the whole book is the Revelation of Jesus Christ through the ages. The first prophecy is the letters to the seven churches which actually happened shortly after John died even though it also has a prophetic meaning to the Church throughout the church age. After the church age the seals are opened showing the judgments on evil people on earth before the restoration described by the OT prophets. This whole church age is nothing but a very brief time in eternity.

    Too bad you gave up the grammatical historical contextual literal exegesis of Bible prophecy (Dispensationalism) for concepts that theologians pulled out of a hat. At least you still think the Lord is coming, so you still have that right.

  9. Also the word used for ‘soon’, carries the meaning of ‘speedily’ -as in that when they occur, it will be all at once, or as Daniel put it “in a flood”.

    When it occurs, there will be no time to react as all types and manners of events will be taking place globally. I suppose that is why the hearts of men will fail.

  10. It is an interesting point regarding Hank Hanegraff. It pertains to the fact that my wife and I were members of the Armgstrong cult the Worldwide Church of God of which Hanegraff was one of the first people to welcome into “mainstream Christianity.” This was in spite of the fact, that WCG never publicly repented of following a man above God’s Word (which is idolatry). In fact, WCG leadership covered up many of Armstrong’s sins as well as his crimes and heresies. Hanegraff never demanded that they repent or that its hierarchy reimburse the people from whom they had taken so much in the way of tithes and offerings, &c., and often actually impoverished.
    How different from the Lord and the apostles and the Reformers who CONTENDED for the faith once delivered and who were hated of all men. WCG, to give them their due, in many ways did stand up for what they believed–though, sadly, their beliefs were usually wrong. But they did know that to believe in something you have to reject other things. That no longer applies to their leadership as it is now well and truly ecumenist.
    I often think on the point that the Bible does tell us of Pharisees who were saved. One thing that the Pharisees could not be accused of was ecumenism. However, the Sadducees were ecumenists. If any of them ever were saved, the New Testament makes no mention of it. Ecumenists could do themselves a favour by thinking on that, Hank Hanegraff for one.

  11. Hank has no theological degree, has never studied Hebrew or Greek, and makes egregious errors in his theological opinions. When he does not know the answer to a question, he goes into a long, rambling, cliche ridden explanation that obfuscates the issue the caller had brought up. On one program, a caller asked how to pronounce a particular Greek word, and Hank just blew by that and went off topic to something that was not even implied by the caller in the question. i have had six years of Hebrew and a year of Greek, and i can tell you that Hank’s lack of understanding of both languages are causing horrendous mistakes in his answers to those type of question. Yes, the “soon/quickly” in Revelation does not mean “soon” as in time, but it means “rapid when it begins” and that is confusing to many people. It is often hard to give a direct translation of the Hebrew or the Greek, but Hank does not know either. i was troubled at his rage against D. James Kennedy over the Y2K problem, and to this day, he claims to be the only one who got it right. He claims Dr. Kennedy (who could parse Greek in his sleep and quote nearly the whole NT in Greek, btw)warned people to get ready for disaster. Dr. Kennedy did no such thing! It was actually the computer geeks who were worried about what might happen to computer systems which all run on a binary math equation – so Dr. Kennedy, and some other ministers, suggested we be prepared with food, cash, candles or flashlights and enough batteries to get us through a potential computer problem, but he certainly was not hysterical about it. i prepared for the new century, wisely because i’ve been using computers since 1979 and knew there was the possibility of some glitches – but i was not hysterical over it and actually, i fell asleep at my normal time with no anxious thoughts at all. Yet, here it is 2012 and Hank still claims to be the only sane voice at that time and continues to mock Dr. Kennedy – and yes, he is beyond belief in his hatred of Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins! Hank is not worth the millions he receives in pay and benefits (and combined with his wife’s salary) and i believe the IRS should audit him and his wife. He has been caught in many lies – the post office scandal is only one of them – he has lost all the lawsuits he brought against Dr. Kennedy, and yet he persists, even after DJK’s death to mock him. Hank is an embarrassment to true Biblical eschatology and discourse. His fabrication of financial disaster is a ploy to drain the listener’s dry – someone needs to put this fraud away – he has no verifiable credentials to do what he is doing. His former employees tell tales of his mismanagement, his foul language and work place abuses that ought to make the EEOC investigate the “ministry” – i am fed up with him – we DO need a reliable “cult watch” on the air to ferret out the new ones popping up, but he as aligned himself with cults and claimed on air that they’ve done the research and all is well with the group and they are just “misunderstood” (ie Watchman Nee’s organization, Local Church). What will it take to get this fraud where he belongs?

  12. Jayleigh,

    Thanks for your input. I just might add,
    The Y2K thing would have been much worse had there not been those warning about the dangers. The warning is what made government and corporations take the threat seriously and fix the problem before it became reality.

  13. HI Don.
    It would be interesting to know how the governments did take the threat seriously to fix the problem. I wasn’t aware that any of them did.
    I remember being slightly worried about catching a plane to Malaga, in Southren Spain, from Manchester, England on New Year’s day 2000. A friend of my wife’s and mine wasn’t in the slightest bit worried as he told me long before the flight, on which he and his wife were also booked to fly, that the whole Y2K thing was nonsense.
    His whole background, like his father’s, is in science and he lectured, and still does, in computing at our local university and explained to me why he thought it was logically and scientifically nonsense. having respect for his scientific and computer knowledge I was encouraged by his indifference to the Y2K warnings.
    I later read Dave Hunt’s book on Y2K–written before January 2000–giving a totally biblical view stating why it couldn’t happen.
    Actually, my flight to Malaga was one of the most pleasant I’ve ever had.

  14. I have through the years heard Hanigraaff on the radio and always tearing down other men or women of God, he has twisted the word of God to suit himself and his money making industry… In the word 3John 1:103 John 1:10

    (BBE) So if I come, I will keep in mind the things he does, talking against us with evil words: and as if this was not enough, he does not take the brothers into his house, and those who are ready to take them in, he keeps from doing so, putting them out of the church if they do.

    (DRB) For this cause, if I come, I will advertise his works which he doth, with malicious words prating against us. And as if these things were not enough for him, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that do receive them he forbiddeth, and casteth out of the church.

    (GW) For this reason, when I come I will bring up what he’s doing. He’s not satisfied with saying malicious things about us. He also refuses to accept the believers we send as guests. He even tries to stop others who want to accept them and attempts to throw those people out of the congregation.
    I find this scripture to pertain to Hank as saying Malicious things of so many. I also see that the annointing is to teach us and only those filled with spirit of truth the seed of the Lord
    In Php 2:3 Don’t act out of selfish ambition or be conceited. Instead, humbly think of others as being better than yourselves.
    Php 2:4 Don’t be concerned only about your own interests, but also be concerned about the interests of others.

    Would you say every one who dosent agree with you is wrong can only you understand Scripture. Who made you Judge !!!!!

    James Jas 2:12 Talk and act as people who are going to be judged by laws that bring freedom.
    Jas 2:13 No mercy will be shown to those who show no mercy to others. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
    He Being empty of the Love for his brothers has become a condemor of all. where is the Love of God. because his understanding is limited to his Judgments he is not effectaul in anything. who has no sin cast the first stone obviously he thinks he is messiah setting all belivers straight on there doctrine that dosent agree with his. I thank God that he poured out his spirit on me 25 years ago filled me with the Holy spirit and baptised me with the H.S and his heavenly language as evidence of my redemption, delivering me of demons of drugs of sexual imorality Baptising me with repentance as he showed me my sins for 3 hours things I never new were sins as having no knowledge of the word of god. Though 15 years earlier I had Over dosed on Drugs and as my friends called 911 and scattered I watch from out of my body as I proceded to stand be fore the lord, as I beg to be allowed to go back and live promisng to be “good” Not knowing what good was! My sin and shame kept me from embracing the Lord but right before he sent me back His love washed through me as I returned to my body on an ambulance begging the Lord to let me stay with him for another 15 years I tried to find him though I had no idea how to The only christians I met were full of judgement being raised Catholic I knew That wasnt the way I never heard of christian TV so Stuck in the trap of demons I continued to dystroy my self but in the back of my mind I new there was a love I would find one day! But how. Finally I saw these people My new sister inlaws praying in this strange language and I asked them they told me and I continued to look til a 65 year old women who was on cocain at my wedding came back 2 weeks later and told me she found the Lord and he cast out the demons from her as they screamed and she fell to the ground and the left, then being empty the HS filled her with his precous HS and she began speaking in tongues as the spirit gave her utterance. I said take me to where I can find this it is what Ive been looking for. At last at the age of 29 a life of sin and pain Jumping 3 storys to escape captors that raped and beat me about to murder me and a voice said Jump I listened and jump through glass and screen 3 stories up on colfax avenue in denver save as I ran through the alley naked and beaten Jesus freaks protecting me and clothing me from those chasing me. shoved in an all male prison in Galaton TN at the age of 14 and forgotten about for 3 weeks, Always wondering how to find this Jesus I was saved at 29 years old and then as I emmersed my self in the word christian radio and TV I heard this man Hank hanigraaff talking bad and stirring up strife about all I held so sacred and dear I new he was not from God with everything in me.

  15. Daphne,

    Keep in mind that much of what Hank Hanegraaff says is correct. He does have a whole Christian research institute behind him and they usually get Christian doctrine right and people should seriously ponder what is said.

    As for your experiences, they are your experiences but your emotional experiences do not trump foundational Christian doctrine. The Bible is our guide, not how some experience gave us an emotional high in a low time in our life. People in false religion also get experiences that help form their religious views.

    The measure by which Christians should gauge all things is the Bible, not emotional experience or speaking in tongues. I assure you that many into the satanic also speak in tongues. There is only one Baptism, One faith, one Lord.

    Much of your long personal experience may be intrusting, but it really does not reflect on Hank Hanegraff.

  16. I really dont get why Hank continually speaks against the body of Christ. Isolating himself,by speaking against denominations, while strengthening his position with his faithful. This does not help us at all.
    I woke up one morning and as normal I made a cup of tea, as I was stirring it, staring out the window, I heard the still small voice saying, “that they would be one”. When I heard that, I started weeping. So I went to my chair as I do every morning and opened the bible to John 17. I couldn’t read the words, because of tears. It took a long time before I could read it and pray it.
    It’s so sad when I hear people banging away on the body of Christ. He said that the world would know that He was sent by His Father when we were in unity Loving each other(my way of saying it). Also it would take the five fold to equip the saints…….. Til we came to the unity of faith. He does have good things to say doctrinally but I think they’re negated by these other issues. Now here I am talking about him. Not good.
    How are we going to overcome all this? We need Him (Jesus) to show up on the scene and do something.

  17. Rod

    Those born of the Spirit are in unity when they are walking in the Spirit. When some teach heresy it is up to believers in the body to discern the word and expose teaching or claims that seem to be contrary to the revealed word. That is what the Christian Research Institute does.

    The Lord’s prayer in John 17 does not quite say what you appear to convey. Jesus was not saying that all those that identify with Christianity would be known by their love for one another. He was talking about those born of the Spirit and living in Him. Those in Him are unified in Him by His Spirit.

    Jesus was praying that believers given to Him by the Father would all be united in Him by the teaching of the word delivered by His disciples. In other words, the teachers of the word would complete the body of Christ by bringing the message of salvation to all that the Father would give Him.

    Those given to Jesus by the Father have the Holy Spirit. They are united in Christ and are spiritually sitting with Christ in heaven as one body.

    That does not mean that Christians on earth now seeing dimly will not have theological differences and that we should not try to hammer out those differences to try to determine what is scriptually sound. The Christian Research Institute has an important function in the Body of Christ to expose false teaching. That does not mean they get everything correct. And their teaching against what they believe is false teaching does not bring disunity to the body of Christ. If any doctrine can withstand the test against scripture and remain, it can only help the whole Body.

    While we occupy this evil age we are told to test all things and to check all things against what the scriptures say. So don’t throw out the whole CRI baby with some bathwater held by Hanegraaff.

  18. This article and some of these comments inspired me to do some research on the CSI and this article….


    Here are a few excerpts that I will pick on, correct me if I’m too far off (I know you will 🙂

    HH:At the end of the day, our heavenly Father is not pro-Jew—he is pro-justice; He is not pro-Palestinian, he is pro-peace.

    The Father is “Pro-Peace”…really ?…tell that to the Pharaoh of Egypt in The Exodus, The Amalekites, The Bejamites, etc. I won’t get into the pro-any race, that’s too much to go into here.


    HH:Finally, I am not anti-Israel; I am anti-Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism supposes that the Jews are going to be herded back in the Holy Land where two-thirds will be killed. Christian Zionism is not only anti-Semitic with respect to the Palestinians, it is detrimental in that the Jews are going to suffer for the sins of their fore-fathers.

    Mathew 27:25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

    It appears to me that HH is another one who views prophetic doctrine as allegorical on what he deems as uncomfortable truths as spoken in The Word.

    HH is basically claiming the covenant with Abraham means little, if anything.

    HH surely isn’t taking prophecy of Israel seriously…nor the miraculous existence of Israel to this day that could have only happened by the Vary Hand Of God…or a very LONG streak of coincidental fortuitous good luck.

    Actually, after reading that article, if I were to buy into it, I’d have to give credence to Mormonism and think that Islam and Oprah are making good points.

  19. ~David,

    Hank Hanegraaff is a Preterist so what would you expect? His anti-dispensational anti-premillennial theology is the main focus of why I created this post.

    Obviously, Hanegraaff believes that the Church was and is Israel. He does not see any covenant to any unbelieving natural descendents of Abraham or Israel. You really do not have everything correct in your comment because you do not understand Covenant Theology.

    In his view, there is only one covenant and that covenant was made to all of faith. Those that are not trusting in God through faith are not in the Abrahamic promises. Either you are spiritual sons of Abraham or you are not.

    He is not wrong about there only being one commonwealth of faith but he is wrong because he cannot see the role of the literal natural called out nation of Israel. He is wrong to think that unconditional covenants with natural people with natural land promises can be spiritualized away by claiming that there is only one spiritual people.

    Obviously, anyone that reads scripture literally will see the distinction but he spiritualizes and allegorizies what does not fit his theology. God is not a liar and He will literally fulfill all unfulfilled unconditional promises made. They are not replaced by a spiritual people, although God did make separate spiritual promises to those spiritual people in the NT.

    By the way, the vast majority of Christendumb believes the the Church is Israel, replaced Israel, or superseded Israel. So Hanegraaff is not in the minority. Most of Christiandumb believes in Covenant Theology and this theology does not allow for them to take most prophetic scriptures in any literal sense.

    The whole Catholic Church and those in Reformed Theology see no possibility of their being a restored natural Israel inheriting the promises or any possibility of a restored physical natural Jewish kingdom.

    The bottom line is that only those that believe that Bible prophecy should be taken literally can get anything correct about Eschatology. It really is a problem of hermeneutics.

    This article I wrote might help some understand the issues.


  20. Genesis 21:12B …For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

    Deuteronomy 1:8 …possess the land which Jehovah sware unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give unto them and to THEIR seed after them.

    Romans 9:7-8 neither, because they are Abraham’s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. (And also Hebrews 11:17-18)

    ISAAC AND HIS SEED ARE THE CHILDREN OF PROMISE – WE ARE NOT. And yes I am shouting but doubt if this ignoramus is listening.

    Such people as this man are worse than atheists, for he professes belief yet by WILFUL ignorance twists the Scriptures to his own purposes.

  21. Brian,

    Nice try, but I have heard the Covenant Theology arguments. People like HH would just say that you proved their point. They would say the children of the promise are true spiritual Israel (as Christians also are) and that most of natural Israel proved that they were children of the flesh. They see no distinction between Abraham, Issac and Jacob and Christians. All are children of the promise and all are the spiritual seed the true Israel of God.

    Just saying..

  22. I have never heard HH but I’m familiar with Covenant Theology/Replacement Theology. The Covenant the Lord made with Abram, Gen:15,18 depends on nothing except God keeping His word. On the other hand the Mosaic covenant of blessings and curses depended on Isreal’s obedience. If I understand this correctly then my question is do the Covenant people not make that distinction? I once asked a pastor to pray for Israel and he refused. I was stunned because he was southern baptist. I never went back to that bible study. I have a passion for Isreal so I get very upset when I hear believers teaching against it.

  23. Hi Caitlin,

    That is correct, but HH and people like Him would say all of faith are the promised seed of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and are of the covenant people. Let me point out something that I should have added to the comment that I made to Brian.

    If Covenant Theology could not make a fairly strong argument from the Bible the theology would not exist. If the main theology that you were taught was Covenant theology you would probably believe it. That is why over 80 percent of Christianity believes in Covenant Theology whether they are aware of the name or not.

    There are some Dispensation Theology scholars that can argue all the point of scripture that Covenant Theology scholars bring up and come on top, but who won that debate is often in the eyes of the beholder. Covenant theology can make the scriptures like Brian brought up say exactly the opposite of what dispensationalists do. The average person will not have the ability to dispute their interpretation just on the passages that they like to use alone.

    Where they totally lose the argument is on the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy. The big difference in the theologies is how one handles the prophetic scriptures. The dispensational scholars win the argument on the unconditional land promises and the new Covenant passage in Jeremiah but mainly the argument is about how prophetic scriptures are handled.

    The dispensationalist uses the literal historical grammatical hermeneutics when handling the prophetic passages, Covenant theology does not. However Covenant theology generally would use that hermeneutic on non prophetic passages. They make an exception when it comes to Bible prophecy because a literal reading would not support their view that Christ and the Church fulfills all.

    If they believed that Bible prophecy had to be fulfilled as written in a literal hermeneutics they would have no case and they admit it. They do not argue that point. However, they simply do not believe that Bible prophecy is going to be fulfilled literally on earth and certainly not fulfilled by the nation of Israel. They spiritulize these passage to the spiritual Church through some allegorical fulfillment.

    Some Southern Baptists pastors believe in Covenant Theology and other are dispensationalists. The denomination takes no position, but I will tell you that Dispensational Theology peaked in the 80’s because even most once dispensational colleges are now downplaying biblical doctrine. The leaders coming out of these institutions are not much interested in Eschatology. They are mainly interested in contemporary positive messages, how to grow the church and how you can communicate with God through Spiritual Formation techniques. I will be writing about the last subject shortly.

  24. Don 7:54 reply:

    I don’t believe those arguments hold any water and I do believe those who hold to them are without excuse.

    The OT references are re Abraham’s physical seed, not some mystical yet future relationship.

  25. Hi Don I fired off my reply before I read your answer to Caitlin.

    If these people are so dead set against the clear prophetic scriptures as to colour their interpretation of the ‘seed of Abraham’ doctrine, they are still without excuse.

    It is deliberate wilful prideful rejection of truth

  26. Don,

    To what you just said about Covenant Theology, how do they justify the miraculous existence of Israel and the current state of Israel working so well in accordance with prophecy ?

    Do they just see it as coincidental fortuitous prosperity ?

    And, I wonder what’s going to happen to that eschatology after the Psalm 83 war, etc.

    More random coincidences I guess.

  27. The comment on David’s part which says that Christian Zionism is “anti-semitic is with respect to the Palestinians” confuses me.
    In the first place the term “Palestinians” did not apply to any Arabs until till after the Six Dar War, problably even the Yom Kippur one (both of which the Arabs started). In fact, in the 1950s–AFTER Israel went back to her ancient name–the Arabs sent a delegation to the UN claiming that the term “Palestine” was a Zionist myth.
    No surprise there as Islam has taqqiya which allows Moslems to lie to us infidels.
    Indeed, prior to Israel changing her name back to that by which Jesus Christ, the Apostles and all Jews had called it up till 70 AD, and the consequent Diaspora, only the indigenous Jews of the area where called Palestinians: The Palestine Post was Jewish. The Palestine orchestra was Jewish. The indigenous Jews at that time merely called themselves by the name given to them by the Romans. There was always a Jewish presence there since 70AD till 1948 and they called themselves Palestinians.
    This has always happened to conquered peoples and they return to their ancient names when they are liberated. (Ireland for example returned to Eire, and Welsh & Scottish nationalists still use their ancient names.) Israel merely did the same as have many other nations. Besides God Himself designated them as Israel, not Palestine.
    “Palestine” is built on an Islamic lie. (And we know where ALL liars are going [Rev 21:8]!) Palestine–Philistia–was in the area of the Lebanon, not where Israel is and as always been since God put them there.)
    Also, so-called Palestinians are not Semites, as they claim. The are Hashemites, as the Jordanians call themselves. That means they are part Hamite and part Semite in origin.
    “Palestinians” are called Edomites in the Bible and are descendants of Esau. If anyone wants to know their fate–and not the fate they imagine for themselves–I suggest that they read the book of Obadiah. God sees them as His enemies. God does not say “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated” as a joke[Mal 1:2-3; Rom 9:13]!
    Arafat (an Egyptian and not even an Edomite!) boasted at Camp David of Mohammad’s slaughter of the Jews at Median. He promising them clemency if they opened their gates. When they did, he had them slaughtered. He was a liar! And Mohammad is the Moslem’s great exemplar of whom Arafat boasted. And, bear in mind he made that boast at a peace treaty, and told a journalist that he planned to do as Mohammad did.
    I also fail to see how Jews persecute these Arabs when it is they who train their children to be suicide bombers (which not even the vile Nazis stooped to). It is they who carry out atrocities against unarmed Israelis–regardless of age, sex or condition. So, I fail to see how Jews are the bad guys when they have given up land they won for peace; especially as they won it after being attacked. I don’t know of any other nation which has ever done that for peace.
    And remember: whenever Israel has given up land for peace, all it has even done is make these Arabs demand more land and carry out worse attacks against unarmed Israeli citizens.
    As Colonel Richard Kempe, an Englishman who runs UN Watch (worth Googling), has pointed out: Israel, on going into battle, shows more regard for the lives of their enemies than their enemies do for each other’s lives. (Dave Hunt has dealt with that too on his Berean Call.)
    The Israelis always drop leaflets to warn the citizens to vacate as they are about to attack. The Moslem Arabs not only do NOT do that but they particularly single out unarmed people to murder in their cowardly planting of bombs at bus stops and in other public places.
    Replacement “Theology” (heresy, to call it what it is) is from the pit of hell. I would remind so-called Christians who advocate this bilge which contradicts God’s Word and viturally calls Him a liar, of what God promises in Genesis 12:2-3 & 27:29. If anyone thinks that is Old Testament and no longer appies to Israel or themselves then the should read Romans 11 and especially verse 29.
    I come from Britain, which boasted it had an empire on which the sun never set. And it was true… Until it crossed the Jews.
    We interned Jews in camps in Cyprus, similar to the concentration camps where they had recently been, to send them back to the countries where there families had perished. At Israel’s birth Britain tried to strangle it and armed the Arabs to the teeth and staffed their armies with our officers. This was while this little nation only had old, second-hand rifles smuggled to them from Czechoslovakia.
    This is when there were only several thousands of them and were utterly outnumbered by the millions.
    “Great” Britain is now a 155th-rate backwater that could not organize a booze up in a brewery. Our nation seems to be run by headless chickens and it gets worse all the time.
    Our media and our politicians are utterly anti-Israel and pro-Islam and it makes no bones about it. And the national churches say nothing! That’s because they tacitly–and often not so tacitly–agree with this fallen world and they do not believe God’s promises to the Jews.
    I have watched the meteoric plunge of the US to the pits in less time than the Decline and fall of Britain; which I saw beginning as a teenager in the late 1960s.
    I have seen America’s decline at first creep up behind us until Carter’s “rule” in the late 70s. That’s when the Iranians made him look like an imbecile and he in turn made the US an international laughing stock. Reagan won back some of the world’s respect. But the US double-dealing since as brought curses on the US and it gets worse all the time.
    God says that eventually His fury will rise up in His Face–against Israel’s enemies. And yet we have churches and their leaders who are blind guides leading the blind.
    The Apostle Paul reminds us that we’d better not even dare speak [Rom 11:18] against Israel. How much worse is it for us when our secular and church leaders slander and lie about them and offer succour to psychopaths who want Israel annihilated?
    If we do not challenge them, then we are as bad and then we can expect God’s disapproval.
    We know, from prophecy that is going to happen anyway. And we have eccumenists, like HH who do not even believe that’s going to happen. They and he, I take it, do not realize that 2 Pet 3:3-4 applies to them.

  28. ~David

    Some in Covenant Theology see no prophetic significance to the modern state of Israel. Others think that many in Israel will be saved into the Church when they acknowledge their Messiah.

  29. Brian,

    Most in Christendom think everything is about the Church. I guess you could call it pride. I like to compare them to Leah. They have week eyes and the majority of Jacob’s offspring came from Leah.

  30. Martin,

    Thanks for that very true history lesson, defense of Israel, and warning to the United States and those in Replacement Theology. Your first sentence confuses me through, David was quoting HH. Perhaps you know that but it sounds like you are attributing the statement to David.

  31. The question for me is whether we are grafted into Abraham’s covenant, his seed and people, which I have always believed, but being grafted through grace we were not the original in the covenant, which makes us a separate dispensation.

  32. Yes, I agree that they do see that, Don. We know that the 144,000 will be Christians [Rev 7:4-8]. We can also see the rise in Jews–including rabbis and Hasidic Jews.
    I just happen to disagree with their wishful thinking interpretations because the Bible tells me different.
    Anyway, we also know from prophecy that all the nations will come against Israel at Armageddon.
    So where will Israel be then? Do these Replacement heretics think Israel will be in the South Pole, Australia, or Outer Mongolia? Maybe they think Israel will be a Hippy enclave in San Fancisco’s Hait-Ashbury! Whatever; it does not matter in the slightest what these people think or want to believe. The Bible makes it clear that all the nations will come against Jerusalem. So Scripture makes it clear where the Jews will be situated.
    We know that the Psalm 83 confederacy has never happened before in Arab or Jewish history and therefore couldn’t happen until they would be back in their promised land. Surely this is apparent now in the Arab ridiculously so-called Spring.
    We also know that Ezekiel 37 never happened in the past and if Israel doesn’t have this great army now in this age then when? In the millenium when there will be no armies!?
    I can remember the Six-Day War, in 1967, when mini-skirted Sabras were chasing Arab men in the latter’s batallions. This is while Arabs had been known for centuries as warriors [Gen 16:12] and Jews had never had an army for about 2000 years. They had in fact been ghetto-dwellers and peasants.
    Yet Israeli women were chasing men; and dozens of Jews were putting hundreds of Arabs to flight and hundreds where chasing thousands.
    Fulfilled prophecy convinced me of the veracity of the Bible.
    We know of the prophecy regarding Damascus becoming a heap of rubble. As it is prophesied to benefit Israel [Isaiah 17:9], I had assumed that Israel would flatten Damascus with a nuclear attack. Now, I think it likely that Moslems themselves will do it and unwittingly benefit Israel. After all, Syrians seem to be making a better job of wiping each other out better than any Israelis could do.
    Anyway, as we know that Damascus is the world’s oldest inhabited city, we know that this has never happened before so it must happen yet. Jeremiah 49:23-27 (following on from verses 1-22, dealing with the end of Edom [“Palestinians”]), Amos 1:1-5, Zech 9:9, &c., attest to these events being in relation to Israel and Israel alone.
    These people who are offering succour to the Arabs–and therefore are encouraging them to carry out terror attacks on Israel, wittingly or not–are without excuse. They can neither appeal to history nor to logic to back their beliefs. And they certainly cannot appeal to the Bible.
    In my book, that makes them entirely without excuse.

  33. “Do these Replacement heretics think Israel will be in the South Pole, Australia, or Outer Mongolia?”

    Hey Martin, I love your theology but please… my homeland cannot in any way be likened to the ends of the earth.

  34. It is hard to believe that Torah Judaism has lasted through the Palestinians and the Talmudic Jews and with the addition of Rome at David’s tomb I have to believe we are close to the great apostasy.

  35. The apostasy that I speak of is the coordinated efforts of all those in Jerusalem that are not Torah Jews to legitimize the rejection Christ as messiah and make it a world religion of it under the guise of peace-making. Torah Jews reject Christ as a Messiah but they don’t reject the laws of God or obedience whereas Talmudic Jews, Muslims and the Papal system have twisted God’s laws to fit their beliefs and agenda’s. It’s not nice to mess with root of Israel and I believe the Torah Jews to be that true root. Am I misguided?

  36. Sorry, Don. I didn’t mean to attribute the statement to David. And I apologize to him if he too thought that. I meant that it was put on his comment bit.
    As to Brian, I didn’t mean Oz was the ends of the earth. My sarcasm was to show that you couldn’t get much further from Israel than Oz. Also, my dad spent time in Australia during WW II and they way he’d go on about it (to get my mum to go), I could be excused for mixing it up with the Promised Land!
    And back to Don, if this is not the great apostacy, then what is?

  37. I know we’ve moved on to the spiritual formation topic but I wanted to thank you for the explanation. I’m sorry I’m behind. I spend so much time analyizing things I can’t keep up.

  38. Caitlin,

    Spiritual Formation as of my reply to your comment, is what my latest post is about and it may be the temporary main focus on this blog for a week or so but I have had posts that have continued to be read and commented on for years. All these topics remain open for those that have something worthwhile to contribute.

  39. Brian, the new testament CLEARLY eludes to it . You are focussing too much on the old covenant (old testament ) rather than on the new testament which is the one we are to live by today. ALL those in Christ are considered Abrahams seed according to the promise. It clearly refers to Jews and Gentiles alike. Gentiles were grafted in as heirs in accordance with the scriptures .According to scripture, it is not those Jews that are natural ones only, but according to the spirit. Following your reasoning,only Jews can be saved. That is eroneous and you are clearly wrong. Especially since God says that Abraham is the SPIRITUAL(not natural) father of us all(Christians). You are confusing flesh with spirit issues and that is where you err.

  40. Gary,

    Brian is not erroring in what he said. If you read much of what Brian has been saying on this blog you would know that he is not saying what you imply and they he would agree with most of what you said. However, I will let Brian speak for Himself and let him show you where you err.

  41. I’ve never known any Christian–Christian Zionists like myself included–who believe that only Jews can be saved. It is true that all Christians whether Jews or Gentiles are saved.
    In God’s sight there are three groups of people: Christians, Jews and Gentiles [1 Cor 10:32]. Christians are made up of Jews and Gentiles. And their spiritual father is indeed Abraham.
    The later two groups, Jews and Gentiles, are not saved. But all Israel will eventually be saved [Romans 11:26]. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where it states that all Gentiles will be saved.
    Non-Christian Jews still have a place in God’s plan. If you read Romans 11 you will see that the blessings on those who bless the physical descendants of Abraham and curses on those who curse them (as in Genesis 12:2-3; 27:2) still stands.
    Anyone who doesn’t believe it only needs to look at how my native Britain, which once boasted it had an empire on which the sun never set rapidly became a backwater and a virtual laughing stock as a world power. Check what I’ve written above about how the British treated the Jews. We’re paying for it now. The Bible clearly says so.
    Look at how America’s plunging to the depths. They have turned from God and ceased to bless Israel. So they are being cursed with all kinds of social problems and natural disasters.
    The ridiculously termed Arab “Spring” is showing what God is doing to the people who curse Israel. (Try reading the Psalm 83 prophecy. It has never happened before in history but it’s happening now.)
    Look at at size of the Arab and the rest of the Moslem world. It’s leaders would love to see Israel annihilated–and they say so quite openly–and yet they cannot with all their wealth, might and propaganda defeat a nation which is postage size in comparison. And they are never going to be able to as a reading of Ezekiel 37:1-14 will explain.
    If anyone thinks the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob do not have a special relationship with the God who identifies Himself as their God, I suggest they first read Jeremiah 31:36 and then turn to Numbers 23:9: Israel is still here with us and they are back in their land. They were never accepted in the nations where they were dispersed and they are not accepted by their neighours still in the homeland God promised to them. Even that is prophesied in Scripture.
    They are condemned continually by the UN for having the temerity of trying to defend themselves against constant terror attacks by an inplacable foe that is willing to use their OWN children as suicide bombers against unarmed citizens. Yet not once has the UN condemned Arab terror or even the vile abuses by Arabs of their own children.
    The Bible tells us loudly and clearly that eventually ALL nations of the earth will come against Israel at Armageddon. And if anyone really doesn’t know which side God is clearly going to take then such a person does not know the Bible.

  42. Hi Gary

    My anger toward these replacement theology people is aimed at their abuse of God’s word. You accuse me of focussing too much on the Old Testament but does God contradict himself; I think not, therefore as do all serious students of God’s word (I refer you also to the Bereans Acts 17:10-11), I too will seek the truth of the New from within the context of the Old.

    In Genesis 17:7 God gives Abraham the promise of an everlasting covenant, to be established “between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee”. This and what is to follow is clear reference to a race of people; a race who descended from the loins of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

    Notice that the only stipulation God gives is that Abraham be circumcised, and as Abraham obeyed that stipulation (as do all Jews even to this day) the covenant was established and was everlasting from that moment. If it could be broken, as the replacement theology crowd claim, then God is incompetent. That everlasting covenenant was not only a personal relationship with God through faith but also included their national possession of all the land of Canaan (vs.8).

    In verse 19 he states that is with Isaac (the seed of Abraham and Sarah) and Isaac’s seed after him (i.e. Jacob and his twelve sons – and their sons after them ad infinitum) with whom he would establish this covenant. It is clear from Jewish history that sin and ungodliness will bring about judgements and there have been two major dispersions from the land, but the covenants remain for they are everlasting and will be fulfilled.

    (In every age personal salvation is by faith and this applied to every Jew and Gentile even to the present day. No Jew was ever saved from the consequences of sin because he/she was a physical descendant of Abraham, but was saved through faith in the given revelation from God at the time. This applies today but that revelation is now fulfilled in the NEW covenant which is entered into through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah/Christ.)

    It can therefore be said that the covenant of Genesis 17 is a national covenant and includes the land of Canaan. This national covenant with the descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob has never been rescinded.

    God will fulfil his promises – so it is a Biblical fact that it is with the Jewish race God makes this covenant and that it has nothing to do with Ishmael, or Gentiles of any kind or from any generation. It has nothing to with the Church.

    This was a national covenant with the Jewish race, and it is an everlasting covenant, a covenant which only those blinded by their presuppositions or anti Israel sentiment will deny. It is a distortion of God’s word to associate these passages from Genesis 17 to the New Covenant fulfilled by Christ Jesus on behalf of all mankind, both Jew and Gentile.

    In Romans 9, Paul expresses great sorrow regarding the Jewish people for their rejection of Messiah and his New Covenant, but in no way does this do away with God’s national and EVERLASTING covenant to Israel.
    What angers me is the deliberate or ignorant blurring of the distinctions between God’s national promises to Israel (land and kingdom covenants) and the spiritual covenant and blessing which are gained by faith and were to be shared with all mankind through faith.

  43. This is a 2007-published article, detailing that three years earlier (2004) Hank jumped on the millenial bandwagon.

    Now it’s 2013, the Year of the Snake.

    There are so many false prophets out there, it’s heartbreaking.

    I don’t see Hank as a Spirit-filled man. Humanist, possibly? Because in his mind, the Bible is not the authority on what God means. Thus, I consider him a false prophet. I had not heard of him until Glenn Beck’s The Blaze asked for Hank’s opinion on war with Syria.


    Because I had not heard of Hank, and I couldn’t disagree more with his statements, I went looking for who he is. That’s how I found your article. And I like it.

    Your six-year-old article is STILL spot on.

  44. ImChiquita,

    I would not go that far. I think we can only judge a person’s conversion to Christ based on their confession of faith. Hank Hanegraaff’s confession of faith and his many years of presentation of the true gospel of salvation to others gives me every indication to believe that he is a brother in Christ.

    Even so, it is difficult to understand how he can be so right on salvation theology and so wrong on eschatology and a few other positions. Having said that, mixing correct and wrong theology has happened throughout Church history and is still happening today. This is not unique to Hanegraaff. I guess Humans are all prisoners of our own brains and learned theology.

    That is why Christians must be like the Bereans and check out what other teach with what the word of God actually says using the common sense grammatical, historical method of interpretation that preserves the intent of author’s words rather than allegorizing their word or spiritualizing their words to make them say what they never ever implied. It is also possible that Hanagraaff is unduly influenced by his contributors but I don’t know that for a fact.

  45. You are right that we cannot look into another person’s heart, Don, and that we have to be careful that we don’t wrongly judge others who disagree with us. However, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says ALL Scripture is given of God for doctrine, reproof, correction and for instruction in righteousness.
    I do understand that people sometimes do not get it all right all the time. None of us do. I speak from personal experience! But taking into consideration 1 Thess 5:21 & 1 John 4:1 and 2 Pet 1:20, surely our minds are first to be conformed to God’s word and that we go to it to be corrected and not read into it whatever appeals to what we want to believe.
    I would reckon if someone comes up with another way of looking at Scripture in a way that we have never considered, bearing in mind those above Scriptures, we ought to consider what we’re being told. If we have that approach, I personally think we will take correction if right and reject what we’re being told if wrong.
    Preterists, Catholics, Calvinists, Dominionists and the like tend not to do that. They will ignore, side step, contradict or reject things which conflict with their already held paradigms, even when those things are clear biblical doctrine.
    Maybe I’m wrong but Hanegraaff rejects, as one example, 2 Peter 3:3-5 to cling to his preterist paradigm.
    The Worldwide Church of God which correctly threw out much of Herbert W. Armstrong’s “teachings” have also thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Like all cults, they had some things that were correct doctrinally.
    One of their present members I spoke to recently now believes Matt 24 was about the sack of Jerusalem in 70AD. That’s in spite of verse 21. The eruption of Vesuvius 9 years later caused far more destruction, death and terror than the sack of Jerusalem. Let’s not forget the Crusades, Inquistion, Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagaski, and so on which were also much worse times.
    Now WCG used to hammer Matt 24:21 into the laity. I returned to one of their sabbath services three or four years ago, to hear new unbiblical takes on Isael as well. I can only think that they got this stuff from Hanegraaff as it was never part of their theology before.
    Aren’t those scoffers in 2 Pet 3-5 then twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Pet 3:16]? I hope that’s not being judgmental, Don. But I’d certainly appreciate your thoughts on that.

  46. Martin,

    I understand your concern but I certainly am not going to believe that all that do believe in premillennial theology are lost. Amillennial Covenent theology was in place for most of Church history and is still the theology of the vast majority of those within Christendom today. Partial preterists like Hanegraaff also believe in Covenant Theology. These people just do not see any future fulfillment for natural Israel other than that some will convert to Christianity.

    I think those that allegorize and spiritualize the prophetic scriptures to the Church are myopic but are not lost. They see everything from the point of view of the Church. They do not see the big picture that God’s plan is bigger than the grafted in Church. Salvation does not depend on correct eschatology. Hanegraaff would say salvation is by grace through faith alone. Others you mentioned like the Catholics and the old Worldwide Church of God would add works or keeping the doctrines of their church to salvation. That is damnable heresy because there is only one way to be saved and that way is through trusting in the works of Jesus alone. There is a difference.

    Hank Hanegraaff does not mock those that believe in the seconding coming. He and others in Covenant Theology believe in a second coming. They just think that after the second coming we then go with Jesus into eternity. They do not believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus before the eternal state. So, 2 Pet 3:16 is not talking about those in Covenant Theology. It is talking to those that say Jesus will not return to earth to take His Church at all.

  47. That makes a lot of sense, Don. Thanks for that. The impression I got from Worldwiders and other things I’d found on-line was that HH didn’t believe in Covenant Theology. I should have checked it more thoroughly. Thanks.

  48. RE: Martin Horan’s comment about “Palestinians” – First of all, i agree with your comments, but what i want to point out is that Britain first referred to the Arab people as “Palestinians” way back “when.” It is an incorrect term because “Palestinian” is a corruption of “Philistines” of which there are none living! The land they occupied during the period of the Kings was the shfala, or what we call the well-watered-plain. The Arab nations did not descend from this body of people simply because by the New Testament age, they had either inter-married with other races, or simply died out, or moved into other lands and were assimilated. To give the Arab people the designation of Palestinians has given credence to their “claim to the natural right of land ownership.” That said, it is still incumbent upon every Believer to pray for the Arab nations so that 1) they will come to know the truth as revealed in Jesus Christ, and 2) they will forsake jihad as a way of life. But, we must stop referring to them as “Palestinians” and only use the term Arab nations. Semantics does matter. The Arabs use that historic name to lay claim to the land. But then, that should be the prayer of our hearts for the Israeli’s, as well and for all the nations and tribes, including our own. Yes, i suppose the argument could be made that Palestinian only refers to people who live in Palestine, but the fact is, Rome began referring to that land as “Palestine” when they occupied the land. There still were no Palestinians there, but it was their hatred of the Jews and the refusal to acknowledge them as the rightful occupants of the land that caused the name change way back then. The shfala is actually quite a narrow piece of land; it did not encompass all of even what modern day Israel occupies.

  49. It breaks my heart to see prideful Christians like Hankegraff with poor Hermeneutics not understand prophecy. It’s so sad they leave the Jews completely out of the picture, not taking into account the Old Promises, compared to the New Promises.

    It seems to me denying the return of Christ and teaching against the doctrine of Imminence qualifies as apostate. The apostate church will go through the tribulation unless they repent correct? I mean Jesus is outside knocking. That seems pretty loud and clear to me.

    Also, calling yourself the Bible Answerman seems like the most prideful thing I have ever heard. Jesus Christ is the only Bible Answerman in my opinion. The rest of us are just sharpening iron.

    Much love and respect to my brothers and sisters in Christ. See you on the way up, and make sure to pray for Hank.

  50. I think many who dabble in eschatology do not concentrate on the big picture; i.e. those many individual events the Bible says ARE to happen in the last days.

    Too many have tried to match current political situations to these ‘Last Days’ events and end up with a never ending string of conjectures, which in a short space of time prove to be wrong. I do not point the finger too strongly as I have found many of these conjectures interesting to say the least. But as I get older and more weary I am becoming more pragmatic and willing to let things play out in God’s good time.

    We do live in ‘interesting’ times but knowing that my future is eternally reconciled to the Almighty God gives me peace that transcends the terrors of the present day. May it be so for all those who look for the Lord’s appearing.

  51. Thanks for your imput, Jayleigh; and I agree with what you say.
    Actually, the land was called Palestine, as mentioned earlier, since the time of the Romans. It wasn’t called that, however, by the people who lived there at the time–the Jews. We only have to read the words of Jesus Himself when talking of the people and the place, to discover that. So, when Arafat stated at the UN that Jesus Christ was the first Palestinian to carry a sword, we know that he was lying on both counts (of His nationality and of His carrying a weapon).
    It was not the only time Arafat made that ludicrous claim. He also did so in front of his friend, Pope John Paul II. The late Dave Hunt asked in one of his broadcasts why the pope didn’t publicly rebuke Arafat as Arafat had made the statement in public.
    It asonishes me when people who claim to be Christians can’t see what is in the Bible. After all, there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who know the historical facts regarding Israel and Palestine. It’s somewhat ironical that they can teach apparent Christians a thing or two that backs up biblical claims of which the latter are ignorant, whether wilfully or unwittingly.
    Good points there from Brian too.
    Some people do dabble in eschatology who are ever-learning and never coming to a knowledge of truth. I do believe, though, that we are always to be ready and not be like the foolish virgins. And as “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” [2 Tim 3:16], prophecy is as important as the rest of the Scriptures.
    I too get weary of people flying off on tangents that I agree that Brian’s bottom line is the most sensible attitude. If we go to God’s Word to be corrected by it and led by His Holy Spirit, the flaky stuff usually stands out a mile. It’s easy to see when a “teacher” is being categorical about something of which he’s got no reason to be categorical. Those people always end up with egg on their faces.
    There are good teachers and there are those with agendas. But there are those who have proved their mettle, not by giving dates but by pointing out certain things in the past which we have seen clearly come to pass. They keep pointing back to the Scriptures (not to dreams and visions) so much so that I anticipate some of the other things which they are expecting to maaterialize, though not saying it is definitely going to happen.
    Yeah, Brian’s bottom line is a good once to hold to while checking out others’ points–but only when they are sticking to Scripture.

  52. I love Hank. I agree that he is passionate about his beliefs sometimes becoming a bit over aggressive, but you cannot deny truth that he brings. Dispensational theology is new. It was never held by the historic church. It is built on an assumption and supported by circular reasoning. However, as Walter Martin says, these are peripheral theological debates. Pre trib, post trib, Amil, etc. We are all brothers in Christ as the differences do not contradict essential Christian doctrine. God bless.

  53. Mike,

    Dispensational Theology is not much younger than the Covenant Theology that Hanegraff has. The Historic Church was not aware of Dispensational Theology because nobody had at that point defined it. We build on knowledge by studying the scriptures and that is what Dispensational Theology did.

    The Church all the way back to Augustine allegorized prophetic passages and it is now called amillennial. Dispensational theology is built upon the assumption that God literally fulfills his covenants and literally will fulfill what the prophets said to Israel rather than believing some allegorical interpretation of the prophetic scriptures that are made up at the whims of men.

    The Historic Church was amillennial and mainstream Christianity still is, but any reading of the prophetic scriptures that uses the grammatical historical interpretation of the prophetic passages is in agreement with the main points of Dispensational Theology.

    The foundation stone of Dispensational Theology is based on the truth that Israel and the Church are distinct in God’s economy – The Church is not Israel and it does not supersede Israel – The Church was grafted into the Commonwealth and New Covenant that was given to Israel but it does not replace Israel. There are unconditional literal promises given to natural Israel that can only be fulfilled on earth with literal events by literal Jews in a literal land of Israel. For more information read my article that tells why Ammillennial Theology is in error.

    It was Hanegraff that chose to attack dispensational Christians with his book and not the other way around. Likewise, I very seldom tune in his program when he is not putting down those that believe the prophetic scriptures will be literal fulfilled and that the return of Israel to their land is part of His plan. His other theology is a mixed bag.

  54. Way to go Don, well put.

    Why don’t people believe God says what he means and means what he says and take the Biblical record as it is written not as they want it to be. To allegorize the scriptures is to replace what is said with what one wants it to say. It is an imposition by foolish men upon what they find unacceptable in the Word of God.

    One would have to discard Paul’s teaching in Romans 11, or skip through it without considering its implications to reject Israel’s continuing part in God’s purposes.

  55. Hi Brian,

    Actually people like Hanegraff spin Romans to say what it does not so that it will conform to their replacement theology.

  56. Yes, Brian, I know what you mean. I get so frustrated with those attitudes. Some people think the Bible is a pick and mix and that they can take out what fits into their already held paradigms. 1 Thess 5:32 and 1 John 4:1 does not seem to enter their heads. And when it comes to 2 Pet 1:20 they think they can forget that and go along with their private interpretations.
    Don’s just summed it up with Hanegraff.
    I’m having problems trying to get through to a “Bible believing” friend who’s become involved in Malcolm Heap’s Midnight Ministries. Heap claims he’s going to raise Princess Diana from the Dead and fifty other people at the same time. Those to be raised are relations of his cult members (according to my friend)! At the same time Heap’s disciples are helping this miracle worker with finances to built a shelter underneath his home for the coming Great Tribulation. He can raise people from the dead but he can’t afford to build a shelter!
    I don’t know about anyone else, but if someone raised me from the dead into the middle of the GT I would be infuriated.
    People who claim to be Christians very often believe such unbiblical bilge. Heap and his followers all claim to be Bible believers.
    Now there’s an amazing example of an imposition by foolish men upon what they find unacceptale in the Word of God. How much worse can it get?

  57. Way late to this thread but I enjoyed reading it none the less!

    Was just listening to HH attacking Dispensationalism yet again, this time with the novel spin that it’s actually Dispensationalists who are guilty of Replacement Theology (the accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of approach!). Hank clearly can’t make (or refuses to make) the distinction between an earthly people (the nation Israel) and a spiritual people (those in Christ). His lack of grace in even talking about the issue is very sad and unfortunate, let alone very un-Christian.

    Love the website!

  58. By the way, thanks for the link to the Geisler article! Excellent critique of “The Code”.

    I like how HH always uses the worst exponent of a view he disagrees with in order to knock down the entire viewpoint. So, as an example, because John Hagee espouses dispensational viewpoints, the whole viewpoint must be in error. Of course, this strawman argument could be used to discredit any point of view, as every position has it’s adherants that go off the deep end.

    HH has made alot of money going after the low hanging fruit in certain cults and prosperity gospel types, but he went in over his theological head when he went after dispensationalism.

Comments are closed.