Hank's latest book?

[Jin-Roh]

Has anyone gotten into Hank Hanegraaff's (who I will refer to by the symbol "H²") book "The Apoclypse Code?" It's the first book specifically on eschatology that I've read, although I've picked up it by bits through classes and my peers.

Most of it seems pretty straight foreward "apply the rules" approach, but mixed with H²'s "apply the rules, that you shouldn't be ignorant of. I can't believe people are this ignorant." tone throughout much it.

Supporters and detractors welcome, espiecally detractors.

[Geek Eclectic]

I saw it in the bookstore and flipped through it. What little I read of it was awesome. Definitely not what I was expecting from a book with that title. I hope to get it sometime soon and do a more thorough reading.

[Armor of God]

If you listen to Hank on the radio, he writes just like he talks....he repeats things over and over again.

The content of the book isn't too bad. He lays things out in a pretty organized fashion, and the language is such that anyone can understand his case. However, the target of his ire (ie, LeHaye et al.) is just too easy. He goes after the goofiest section of dispensational teachers that he could find. I suppose he does this because they're also the most popular among end times plebes, but it would have been nice if he would have interacted with the more scholarly crowd that pushes dispyism. And yes, the tone of the book does get a bit annoying (just like his tone on the radio), but that's going to be the case when you're tearing down the popular message that floods from pulpits and prophetic "workshops" constantly.

Overall, it was a decent book, and one worth having in your library. But I would definitely wait until the price drops on it. Borrow it from a friend.

[dizzle]

I will be reviewing this book for Tekton. My copy is coming.

[Jin-Roh]

If you listen to Hank on the radio, he writes just like he talks....he repeats things over and over again.

The content of the book isn't too bad. He lays things out in a pretty organized fashion, and the language is such that anyone can understand his case.

I think that's hank's strength though. He breaks down fairly complex things for the laity.

However, the target of his ire (ie, LeHaye et al.) is just too easy. He goes after the goofiest section of dispensational teachers that he could find. I suppose he does this because they're also the most popular among end times plebes, but it would have been nice if he would have interacted with the more scholarly crowd that pushes dispyism.

I agree, but when you write at a popular level, you have to respond to the popular authors. Incidently, did you know that one of my teachers gave away a LaHaye book as a gag gift to a student?

And yes, the tone of the book does get a bit annoying (just like his tone on the radio), but that's going to be the case when you're tearing down the popular message that floods from pulpits and prophetic "workshops" constantly.

And I note, that H2 doesn't seem to ever do much constructive. He's always corrective. He doesn't seem to be trying to argue for more positive implications of an alternate viewpoint. Just "LaHaye is ignorant. Don't be like LaHaye. Learn this method." and that's it.

[Jin-Roh]

Hold on...did anybody who read this book catch the details about the Red Heifer on pages 208-211? Apparently, people have been, for the last ten years, trying to breed a red heifer for sacrifice. One attempt involved some pentecostal from Mississippi tried to breed one but failed, and so did some other attempts.

I really hope H2 is exagerating here, becuase it sounds like some of the silliest stuff I've ever read.

[Ted]

Hank's reportage on the red heifer is not news. That stuff is well-known in Dispy circles. The more radical Dispy's are exactly as Hank describes them. And that's scary. I'm at work, away from my library, so I can't give you all the cites, but there are a number of writers in that camp that seem to think that it's necessary for us to force God to fulfill prophecy the way they see it. So they are breeding red heifers, pre-fabbing Ezekiel's temple, and so on. All this effort is done to the exclusion of the gospel. Sad.

Hank's "exegetical eschatology" paradigm is excellent, but even there he has blind spots. For example, he gets wound up in the Nero identification as the beast based on the "number of the beast" calculations (which I deal with in detail on my website). This clearly ignores a couple of other approaches to the number based on the Greek. Thus, he leans on a debatable passage as his sole source for the beast identity.

Had Hank applied his paradigm completely, he would have realized that the beast is identified at the beginning of the chapter by it's symbolic description. That is clearly a conflation of the four beasts of Daniel 7, and thereby brings their identities into the identification. Thus, the beast is not a single person, but the sum of man's kingdoms from neo-Babylon to the end of time.

It appears that the discussion of the date of the book has tilted Hank's focus enough that he simply missed the explicit data in favor of more titillating speculation.

Ted

[Gromit45]

I will be reviewing this book for Tekton. My copy is coming.


Looking forward to it.

[Jin-Roh]

I finished the book today. His last chapter had nothing new in it -just repitition for sake of retention.


Hank's "exegetical eschatology" paradigm is excellent, but even there he has blind spots. For example, he gets wound up in the Nero identification as the beast based on the "number of the beast" calculations (which I deal with in detail on my website). This clearly ignores a couple of other approaches to the number based on the Greek. Thus, he leans on a debatable passage as his sole source for the beast identity.

Had Hank applied his paradigm completely, he would have realized that the beast is identified at the beginning of the chapter by it's symbolic description. That is clearly a conflation of the four beasts of Daniel 7,and thereby brings their identities into the identification. Thus, the beast is not a single person, but the sum of man's kingdoms from neo-Babylon to the end of time.

Well, considering typology, I'm not sure if the issue is an either/or. I'm curious, why do you feel that Hank's reasoning was inadequate? Did you reject his appeals to latin manuscripts to establish how people orginally understood 666?

[Ted]

I finished the book today. His last chapter had nothing new in it -just repitition for sake of retention.

Well, considering typology, I'm not sure if the issue is an either/or. I'm curious, why do you feel that Hank's reasoning was inadequate? Did you reject his appeals to latin manuscripts to establish how people orginally understood 666?

Hank never addresses the symbolism. As for this being an "either/or," consider the source. In Daniel 7, the beasts are clearly kingdoms, and never individuals. This continues down thru the horns. If we backtrack to chapter 2, Daniel tells Nebby that "he is the head of gold," but that's clearly pars pro toto, and refers to the kingdom, represented in this case by the king. Thus, there is no reason to expand to any individual.

But let's suppose for the sake of argument that we did want an individual, reading the number passage as "it is the number of ONE man." The historical progression is one where man's kingdoms appear to have ceased to exist (as in the fall of Rome in the 5th century). Then when the "Holy Roman Empire" (actually none of the above) arose to provide some semblance of stability, this looks like the beast (man's kingdoms!) has been resurrected. Thus, we would now need to look for a person at least five centuries after Nero. It just doesn't work.

As for Latin manuscripts, I have no position. I haven't studied them. But I wouldn't be surprised at any position taken by them. If you look at other biblical issues, the ECF's frequently disagree. Thus, since Revelation was late to the acceptance party, what we most likely will see is speculation similar to much of what we see today.

Ted

[gharfish]

2 links, both from The Preterist Archive (website):

Thomas Ice's review of Hank's book
http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/ice-tommy_07_01.html

Not surprisingly, Hank's book is especially critical of Tim LaHaye's books.....so, here's another (internal) link to a "rebuttal," of sorts to it (Hank's view). It's from a "frequently asked questions" section.

http://www.timlahaye.com/about_ministry/index.php3?p=faq&section=FAQs#c

[Geek Eclectic]

I'm reading LaHaye's rebuttal right now, and he's not very good with the consistency.Most preterists believe that we are currently living in at least an inaugurated new heavens and new earth, since all the Book of Revelation had to have a first century fulfillment. . . . . MODERATE preterists believe . . . . that a few passages still teach a yet future second coming (Acts 1:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) and the resurrection of believers at Christ's bodily return. . . . . Today, most of those calling themselves preterists would fall into the moderate camp.Call me crazy, but if "most . . . preterists . . . fall into the moderate camp", and "moderate preterists believe . . . . that a few passages still teach a yet future second coming" . . . how he can say something so deceitful as "most preterists believe . . . . all the Book of Revelation had to have a first century fulfillment." Call me crazy, but that's just plain inconsistent. I think it borders on dishonesty, actually, as he only mentions non-Revelation passages and fails to acknowledge the passages in the last couple chapters of Revelation that Preterists believe refer to the same non-fulfilled events.Then I will conclude with a presentation of why prophecy should be interpreted literally and thus understood as future events to our time.I saw his entire list of items. Some are correct, some are correct but taken out of context, a couple are incorrect(at least in what he calls moderate Preterism) and there are a few items I've never seen before so cannot make a judgment one way or the other. This statement from his conclusion to that section, though, made me :lol: because he doesn't seem to realize that Futurists don't take Biblical prophecy any more literally than Preterists. Someone with the education he claims to have shouldn't misuse the word "literally" like that.

[gharfish]

Here's a link to a short article by Ed Hindson.. It's also from/cataloged on The Preterist Archive website. It prominently features Hank's "The Last Disciple" 's book cover. It's an attempt to 'go after' orthodox preterism, mostly, it seems. I haven't read it all the way through, or closely, either one. I just know Hindson is a critic of partial preterism.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/hindson-ed_ca_01.html

Like Hank's latest book does; in defense of orthodox preterism, and [against] the theology of Left Behind:

http://www.bibleonly.org/proph/left.html

~that last url isn't working. Please go to http://bibleonly.org/proph/index.html and click on "I Want To Be Left behind (The Cliff Notes Version)"

[Jin-Roh]

2 links, both from The Preterist Archive (website):

Thomas Ice's review of Hank's book
http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/ice-tommy_07_01.html

Not surprisingly, Hank's book is especially critical of Tim LaHaye's books.....so, here's another (internal) link to a "rebuttal," of sorts to it (Hank's view). It's from a "frequently asked questions" section.

http://www.timlahaye.com/about_ministry/index.php3?p=faq&section=FAQs#c

From the site: After this month's introduction to this strange new fad within the field of Bible Prophecy known as preterism, I will continue a regular article about preterism. I will be dealing with the major arguments of preterism and why they are not biblical. Then I will conclude with a presentation of why prophecy should be interpreted literally and thus understood as future events to our time.


Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't Preterism and older view?

Also, in LaHaye's "Implictions of Preterism" seem strange he writes:
STRANGE PRETERIST IMPLICATIONS
The preterist understanding greatly affects events, personalities, and chronologies. If preterism is true, (it is not) then what a different view of the past and future than what we have been led to believe up to this point.. If it is true, then what a vastly different view of Christianity it would produce. The following list includes many of the strange beliefs that preterism yields:

Normally, after a paragraph like this, I expect to hear a kind of Reducto ad absurdum type argument. I expected him to pull out the preterist model and show how it leads to a contradiction or a violation of some central tenant of Christianity. Most of that list was "It's strange becuase it is not my model" type of reasoning. Like:

The Great Tribulation "took place in the Fall of Israel. It will not be repeated and thus is not a future event."

The Rapture is "the 'catching up' of the living saints 'to meet the Lord in the air.' The Bible does not teach any separation between the Second Coming and the Rapture; they are simply different aspects of the Last Day."

The Great Harlot of Revelation was "Jerusalem which had always been . . . falling into apostasy and persecuting the prophets . . . which had ceased to be the City of God."

It as if I want to say, "Yes. Duh. That is what the opposition believes. But, how is it so 'strange' that they do, in fact, disagree with you?"

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

From the site: After this month's introduction to this strange new fad within the field of Bible Prophecy known as preterism, I will continue a regular article about preterism. I will be dealing with the major arguments of preterism and why they are not biblical. Then I will conclude with a presentation of why prophecy should be interpreted literally and thus understood as future events to our time.


Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't Preterism and older view?

Also, in LaHaye's "Implictions of Preterism" seem strange he writes:


Normally, after a paragraph like this, I expect to hear a kind of Reducto ad absurdum type argument. I expected him to pull out the preterist model and show how it leads to a contradiction or a violation of some central tenant of Christianity. Most of that list was "It's strange becuase it is not my model" type of reasoning. Like:

The Great Tribulation "took place in the Fall of Israel. It will not be repeated and thus is not a future event."

The Rapture is "the 'catching up' of the living saints 'to meet the Lord in the air.' The Bible does not teach any separation between the Second Coming and the Rapture; they are simply different aspects of the Last Day."

The Great Harlot of Revelation was "Jerusalem which had always been . . . falling into apostasy and persecuting the prophets . . . which had ceased to be the City of God."

It as if I want to say, "Yes. Duh. That is what the opposition believes. But, how is it so 'strange' that they do, in fact, disagree with you?"
Meh...he's preaching to the choir. My guess he is trying to "introduce" people to preterism for the first time with his spin on it. Since preterism is becoming more and more popular, better hear it from him with his spin than to stumble across it unawares (as did I).

[Ted]

For what it's worth, three or four years ago at the ETS meeting I attended a talk by Dispy Boyd Luter (Criswell College) where he trumpeted the fact that Preterism was "new," lacking an organized body of literature until quite recently. Thus, Preterism could not possibly be a valid position.

In the Q&A period I asked him if the same argument couldn't properly be applied to Dispy, since there is no organized body of literature until Darby, et al. You should have seen the stammering and fumbling. Ed Stevens and John Noe gave me free books for nailing him cold.

Ted

[dizzle]

You couldn't pay me to take a Stevens or Noe book.

[Jin-Roh]

What is their position?

[gharfish]

Has anybody yet said something related to Thomas Ice's review of "Hank's latest book" ? LaHaye has been examined (you're welcome for the link!), but Ice's objections to the book would seem to be right on target here: the OP asks for reviews, doesn't it ? ...especially ones critical of; isn't that so ?

Ice may be more difficult to counter-critique than simply the rather general info. LaHaye gives on preterism, the subject (as he sees it), in that FAQ section.

Now,Thomas Ice does 'speak directly' there to the interests of the thread-- Jin-Roh's question. He carefully analyzes Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code."

[Geek Eclectic]

I did find one section of Ice's review pretty easy to critique:Hanegraaff's blend of preterism and idealism produces an eschatology that is viciously anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. His brand of replacement theology teaches that national Israel has no future since she is replaced by the church.No. Just no. While it's true that Preterist eschatology places no prophetic importance on the nation of Israel, it is not true that we believe modern Israel has no future or no importance at all. It is there. We have no reason to believe it won't be there for some time to come. And the people there are every bit as important as the people anywhere else. Just since they do not have a special covenant with God in Preterist eschatology, they are no more important than, say, the Chinese, Zimbabweans, or the Hondurans. They are a modern Gentile people just like all other Gentiles. No more, no less.As is typical within systems of replacement theology, Hanegraaff renders much of the Old Testament obsolete by what is said to have happened in New Testament theology.And this statement is downright retarded. Even Dispensationalists don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so they have no ground to stand on when claiming Preterist eschatology renders portions of the OT obsolete. I'd actually posit that Preterists do a better job of referencing the OT and its typologies and linguistic phrases when interpreting the NT, thus keeping their interpretations more consistent and treating the OT with more respect(ie as less obsolete) than Dispensationalists.Through alleged hermeneutical ideas, such as Hanegraaff's so-called, "typology principle," he interprets future promises to Israel allegorically as fulfilled through the church. Such deconstruction of God's Word renders the future promises to Israel as mythological and not true historical records of God's veracity.This is crap, too. If he's going to attack Preterist typology, then he should also attack Paul's exegesis of God's promise to Abraham in Galatians 3:15-18 on the same grounds. When one realizes that Israel is Christ(and by extension those grafted onto Him), this makes a lot more sense. There are many things in the NT that makes this clearer. We have "the vine" being pruned and having new branches grafted on. We have circumcision being made uncircumcision, and vice versa. We have the remnant of Revelation, who in Preterist eschatology are the Jews who accepted Christ and thus were not pruned away when the suzerainty treaty established in Deuteronomy was severed during the events foretold in Revelation(in Preterist eschatology, of course). And considering that the entire world, including Palestine and the surrounding areas, will belong to and be directly ruled by Jesus after His second and final coming, that land will belong to Jesus -- to Israel -- and by extension to the "many" who are "in Him." There is no way that someone taking an honest look at Preterist eschatology can claim that if Preterism is true the promises of God aren't fulfilled. They just aren't fulfilled the way that Dispensationalists would like.Hanegraaff regularly calls Jerusalem "the harlot city."This statement is in the same anti-Israel/pro-Palestine section, so I assume Ice is referencing this to show that HH has something against Modern Israel and Modern Jerusalem. If HH is talking about eschatology, though, then his referencing of Jerusalem as a "harlot city," which is the view in Preterist eschatology, is talking about ancient Jerusalem -- the Jerusalem of 2,000 years ago. Modern Jerusalem would be no more the harlot city than Singapore or Timbuktu.

Someone better-versed in Preterist eschatology(and in HH's book) will have to answer the rest of his sections. He made many claims about things HH said in his book that I cannot verify, but this particular section had some errors that I'd encountered before and felt comfortable replying to. Ice shows that he's at least as ignorant of the ramifications of Preterist eschatology, at least in regards to how Preterists view Israel, as he accuses Hanegraaf of being concerning Dispensationalism. If he made so many errors in the short passage I critiqued, then I have to wonder how much better the rest of his essay really is.

[gharfish]

It's really that bad up in there ? ...downright retarded and crappy at times ?

Well, Ice hasn't much personal experience in actually engaging orthodox preterists in their specific areas of belief. So then you can see how he might get those misunderstandings you saw--even strangely "off" on the major points of contention.

[Geek Eclectic]

It's really that bad up in there ? ...downright retarded and crappy at times ?At least in the section that I critiqued, yes.Well, Ice hasn't much personal experience in actually engaging orthodox preterists in their specific areas of belief. So then you can see how he might get those misunderstandings you saw--even strangely "off" on the major points of contention.Perhaps that's the case. I hope so, anyway. Still, I stand by my statement of "retarded" concerning that particular statement. It's right up there with futurists claiming they take Biblical prophecy more "literal" than Preterists. Both statements lead us to one of two conclusions. The person may not understand his own eschatology, and he actually believes what he says to be true. Or the person does understand his own eschatology, and simply doesn't understand what he's saying and why it's false.

[dizzle]

What is their position?

Hyperpreterist

[Jin-Roh]

Has anybody yet said something related to Thomas Ice's review of "Hank's latest book" ? LaHaye has been examined (you're welcome for the link!), but Ice's objections to the book would seem to be right on target here: the OP asks for reviews, doesn't it ? ...especially ones critical of; isn't that so ?

Ice may be more difficult to counter-critique than simply the rather general info. LaHaye gives on preterism, the subject (as he sees it), in that FAQ section.

Now,Thomas Ice does 'speak directly' there to the interests of the thread-- Jin-Roh's question. He carefully analyzes Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code."

I'm getting ready for church, so I'm going to have to take a closer look at Ice's review later. However I found this:
Further, the book of Revelation is not written in code (where does Revelation say that?), thus, no need to break the code as Hanegraaff contends.

Does anyone other than me see the huge, gaping, error in this statement?

[dizzle]

I am reading Hank's book now, and I think so far it is very good as an entry level introduction.

[dizzle]

I'm getting ready for church, so I'm going to have to take a closer look at Ice's review later. However I found this:
Further, the book of Revelation is not written in code (where does Revelation say that?), thus, no need to break the code as Hanegraaff contends.

Does anyone other than me see the huge, gaping, error in this statement?

You're killing me!!! That is almost pathologically stupid of Ice.

[gharfish]

That one sentence ought to be put in context, to be fair. And remember that Ice's comments there are much more a review specifically of Hanegraaff's book, The Apocalyse Code, and not an attempt to refute the "preterist/idealist eschatology" Ice says Hanegraaff holds as true to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

In the interest of keeping that sentence in proper and fair context, look [I]ahead of it:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Humble Hank Hanegraaff ridicules Hal Lindsey's 1997 book, Apocalypse Code, as the one (Lindsey) who claimed to understand the book of Revelation. 'Until the present generation,' declares Hanegraaff of Lindsey, 'the encrypted message of the Apocalypse had remained unrealized' until Lindsey cracked the Code. Now Hanegraaff meekly declares of the release of his new book: 'I think it will create a major paradigm shift in our understanding of the end times that is long overdue.' "



To that I say, what ?!

And, immediately following that selected sentence, quoted by Jin-Roh, Ice says: "The great majority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff's distorted view of dispensationalism in general and Tim LaHaye in particular.........."there are great quantities of some of the most vicious tirades against LaHaye and many other Bible prophecy teachers that I have ever seen in print."

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/ice-tommy_07_01.html



This mess is the main problem I, La ghariyal, have with authors like, say, DeMar...and now, apparently, Hanegraaff (says Ice). Preterism shouldn't--it doesn't need to be, ever, to become what I call an attack dogma. It gets so old when again "dispy" authors are vilified by preterist authors simply for their [differing] dispensationalism.

[Jin-Roh]

Okay, now I think I can look at Ice's responce more closely.

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."[12] 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. He may want to produce only a method of interpretation, but the moment anyone applies a method it produces an outcome or model of eschatology.

He's half right here. First, I share his frustrations that H2 never wants to put himself in a camp. He's also right that as soon as you follow H2's method, you get a conclusion. For H2, there never really seem to be "models" becuase of some of his assumptions. i.e., if everyone just read the bible, we'd all agree on the same things.

However, I think the "dark ages" comment is hyperbole.

Hanegraaff appears rather proud to tell readers that the principles of his methodology is "called Exegetical Eschatology or e2,"[13] as if no one before he came along had ever produced a view of eschatology from proper exegesis. Interestingly, for someone who claims such a deep commitment "to a proper method of biblical interpretation"[14] it is stunning to realize that Hanegraaff's "method" is stated as principles, rather than an actual method like the historical-grammatical.

I think he misunderstands H2. H2 isn't trying to come up with something all by himself. Anybody who has read some stuff on hermenutics knows that he's repeating rules that most bible students know. What he is doing is packaging it a nice, easy to remember, box for laity. Also, his objection with Hal is that Hal claimed that the holy spirit gave him special insight. So Ice's accusation of hypocracy doesn't stand.

Traditionally this is called the analogy of faith, that Scripture interprets Scripture. This also is a theological outcome and not a method. This principle also presupposes that one already properly understands the meaning of all of the other passages that are supposed to shed light upon the one in dispute. Such is not the case.

He's right about the complexities of of "scripture interpreting scripture" but he fails to understand that coherence is part of a method. Besides, "theological outcome" and "method" aren't split so easily anyway.

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[19] and a blasphemer[20] because he advocates a different view of Bible prophecy goes well beyond the pale.

He's just name-calling back here, and is ignore the substance of H2's arguments against LaHaye.

Through alleged hermeneutical ideas, such as Hanegraaff's so-called, "typology principle," he interprets future promises to Israel allegorically as fulfilled through the church. Such deconstruction of God's Word renders the future promises to Israel as mythological and not true historical records of God's veracity.

What? Typology is something new now? Something H2 invented? Ice betrays some ignorance yet again.

Overall, not a good responce. Aside from the first part, Ice never really dealt with the substance of what H2 said in his book. He outlined Lights, but never responded to a single argument that H2 used in any of those chapters. Instead, he started accusing H2 of stuff he didn't support and dogmatically asserted the dispy view.

[Jin-Roh]

That one sentence ought to be put in context, to be fair. And remember that Ice's comments there are much more a review specifically of Hanegraaff's book, The Apocalyse Code, and not an attempt to refute the "preterist/idealist eschatology" Ice says Hanegraaff holds as true to the exclusion of all other interpretations.

In the interest of keeping that sentence in proper and fair context, look [I]ahead of it:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Humble Hank Hanegraaff ridicules Hal Lindsey's 1997 book, Apocalypse Code, as the one (Lindsey) who claimed to understand the book of Revelation. 'Until the present generation,' declares Hanegraaff of Lindsey, 'the encrypted message of the Apocalypse had remained unrealized' until Lindsey cracked the Code. Now Hanegraaff meekly declares of the release of his new book: 'I think it will create a major paradigm shift in our understanding of the end times that is long overdue.' "



To that I say, what ?!

And, immediately following that selected sentence, quoted by Jin-Roh, Ice says: "The great majority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff's distorted view of dispensationalism in general and Tim LaHaye in particular.........."there are great quantities of some of the most vicious tirades against LaHaye and many other Bible prophecy teachers that I have ever seen in print."

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/ice-tommy_07_01.html



This mess is the main problem I, La ghariyal, have with authors like, say, DeMar...and now, apparently, Hanegraaff (says Ice). Preterism shouldn't--it doesn't need to be, ever, to become what I call an attack dogma. It gets so old when again "dispy" authors are vilified by preterist authors simply for their [differing] dispensationalism.

La Ghariyal, the main problem I had with Ice's statement is that he acted like revelation should give us, 21st century americans, the "key" to its genre in 21st english. When people say "Revelation is a Code" they usually means its a specific genre -a genre that is not easily understood by people like us.

In order to understand how, we usually look to how writings in this genre were understood in their own historical context. Apparently, there are a lot of writings that are something like revelation, and reading those helps us know the genre and how that said genre is to be understood. Christians have done the same thing with the parables, which is why we read them differently know than we did in the middle ages.

Ice, apparently ignores genre issues. No piece of literture begins with a preamble to it's genre and how it should be read, becuase the writer assumes that those reading it would know. It seems silly that Ice would expect revelation to say "I am full of 1st century, apocalyptic symbolism" in the first chapter.

[Geek Eclectic]

To that I say, what ?!To that I say good. Christians have been ignorant of proper Biblical exegesis and as a result have allowed people like LaHaye and Lindsey to run amok far too long. As the most visible proponents of dispensationalism, they and their particular version of dispensationalism are what need to be addressed first.And, immediately following that selected sentence, quoted by Jin-Roh, Ice says: "The great majority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff's distorted view of dispensationalism in general and Tim LaHaye in particular.........."there are great quantities of some of the most vicious tirades against LaHaye and many other Bible prophecy teachers that I have ever seen in print."Tirades? He didn't provide any examples, so am I just supposed to take his word for it? Considering some basic mistakes Ice made elsewhere, I'm more inclined to believe that he's labeling Hanegraaf's arguments as rants and tirades because they go over his head and he has no other recourse.This mess is the main problem I, La ghariyal, have with authors like, say, DeMar...and now, apparently, Hanegraaff (says Ice). Preterism shouldn't--it doesn't need to be, ever, to become what I call an attack dogma. It gets so old when again "dispy" authors are vilified by preterist authors simply for their [differing] dispensationalism.Did Hanegraaf actually vilify LaHaye, or was he just being honest about LaHaye's faulty exegesis? There's a big difference, you know. Also, while it may not be the most important area of theology, eschatology is still important and needs to be debated in a more open and honest manner than it has been in the past. People doing so isn't turning it into an "attack dogma." To say otherwise is just ignorant.

[gharfish]

Did Hanegraaf actually vilify LaHaye, or was he just being honest about LaHaye's faulty exegesis? There's a big difference, you know.I don't know; I haven't read Hank's book. Darth Shepherd I am only quoting from Ice's review. Why ? Because that rather cherry-picked sentence, I thought, was unfaily pulled out of it's context...within that man's REVIEW. It led to him being called right thereafter, pathologically stupid. And as for "exegesis," one man's faulty is another man's correct, "you know" ?

[dizzle]

I love getting your goat.

I said that statement was pathologically stupid. Not the person. For instance I doubt that you are pathologically stupid in toto, but your antics in eschatology aren't terribly bright.

[dizzle]

To that I say good. Christians have been ignorant of proper Biblical exegesis and as a result have allowed people like LaHaye and Lindsey to run amok far too long. As the most visible proponents of dispensationalism, they and their particular version of dispensationalism are what need to be addressed first.Tirades? He didn't provide any examples, so am I just supposed to take his word for it? Considering some basic mistakes Ice made elsewhere, I'm more inclined to believe that he's labeling Hanegraaf's arguments as rants and tirades because they go over his head and he has no other recourse.Did Hanegraaf actually vilify LaHaye, or was he just being honest about LaHaye's faulty exegesis? There's a big difference, you know. Also, while it may not be the most important area of theology, eschatology is still important and needs to be debated in a more open and honest manner than it has been in the past. People doing so isn't turning it into an "attack dogma." To say otherwise is just ignorant.

I have read a bit of it and I can say it is by no means an attack against LaHaye, but we must not criticize the sacred cow of dispensationalism and point out its incipient racism.

[dizzle]

It's really that bad up in there ? ...downright retarded and crappy at times ?

Well, Ice hasn't much personal experience in actually engaging orthodox preterists in their specific areas of belief. So then you can see how he might get those misunderstandings you saw--even strangely "off" on the major points of contention.

:rofl: :rofl:

O Rly?

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Tribulation-Past-Future-Evangelicals-Question/dp/0825429013/ref=sr_1_1/105-6685035-8290054?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182117627&sr=8-1

Care to speak again? How exactly does foot taste?

[gharfish]

I love getting your goat.

I said that statement was pathologically stupid. Not the person. For instance I doubt that you are pathologically stupid in toto, but your antics in eschatology aren't terribly bright.Yes, that was an interesting move. And now who's the "you" who you doubt is pathetically stupid ? ...the "you" whose antics in eschatology aren't terribly bright ? Is there somebody else here--even one more dispy representative besides me within shouting distance ? Maybe you are again talking out of both sides of your mouth, this time to my goat.

Ok. It's strictly then: Thomas Ice isn't pathetically stupid; that statement is not what I'd expect from him ordinarily (?) And I magine you could call [that sentence] pathetically stupid because you had taken the time to read it in context *before posting that: "You're killing me !!!....."

It looked too much like a knee jerk reaction to me, for we both know (Darth Shepherd does not ?) that Thomas Ice is a real life, in person, rival of DeMar's.

[gharfish]

I have read a bit of it and I can say it is by no means an attack against LaHaye, but we must not criticize the sacred cow of dispensationalism and point out its incipient racism.A thought: how would a calvinist like having his calvinism being called a "sacred cow" ? And would that make any sense ? Sense.

[gharfish]

:rofl: :rofl:

O Rly?

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Tribulation-Past-Future-Evangelicals-Question/dp/0825429013/ref=sr_1_1/105-6685035-8290054?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182117627&sr=8-1

Care to speak again? How exactly does foot taste?Oh, and now this popping-off. Great. You can't have my goat again today; sorry !

I did know that Ice had firsthand knowlege of what preterists believe...and to a tee. Despite his "this is downright retarded and crappy....he doesn't even know what 'we' believe" remark, I was trying to stay cool with Darth Shepherd with only light sarcasm laid down in that post. Review that post, Xena. See if that doesn't ring true when you--were anybody to--reread it.

...some uuugh ! sarcasm, over how someone would have thought Thomas Ice, OF ALL PEOPLE, was somehow a dummy on what orthodox preterists believe and understand about "their" eschatology. Hello ? ...he countered DeMar's attacks on LaHaye & Jenkins, with a book of his own, in defense of the orthodox theology behind the "Left Behind" series.

So this is a second time when you should have first taken enough time before jumping to a conclusion.

[dizzle]

I have your whole flock of goats. You are so amusing and inconsistent it is entertaining.

[dizzle]

A thought: how would a calvinist like having his calvinism being called a "sacred cow" ? And would that make any sense ? Sense.

Relevance? I don't care if you like it. It is the truth - the sacred and cash cow of LaHay's futurist dispensationalism is being led to the slaughterhouse - and it is lowing and moaning the whole way.

[gharfish]

I have your whole flock of goats. You are so amusing and inconsistent it is entertaining.Where have I been inconsistent ?

[dizzle]

:rofl:

You crack me up!!!!

[Geek Eclectic]

I did know that Ice had firsthand knowlege of what preterists believe...and to a tee. Despite his "this is downright retarded and crappy....he doesn't even know what 'we' believe" remark, I was trying to stay cool with Darth Shepherd with only light sarcasm laid down in that post. Review that post, Xena. See if that doesn't ring true when you--were anybody to--reread it.I never said he didn't know -- I was giving him the benefit of the doubt! If he truly is familiar with Preterist eschatology, then he made some really basic mistakes he had no business making. Should I have assumed ignorance on his part, or should I have jumped straight to accusations of intentional deception? Because that's the only other alternative I can think of.

I'm curious to read Ice's book "refuting" Preterism someday. I wonder if he addresses actual Preterism or just erects and burns another strawman. :wink:

[dizzle]

I'm curious to read Ice's book "refuting" Preterism someday. I wonder if he addresses actual Preterism or just erects and burns another strawman. :wink:

There are some real yowlers in that book I linked to above with his calculations (IIRC down to the very second) on Daniel 9.

BTW, I am on page 50, and by no means whatsoever is the book a "rant" or "attack" upon LaHaye. Methinks the dispensational dog is simply getting hit with a very large rock. Hank's book is so far, again, an excellent introductory text. I will likely recommend it in place of Last Days Madness in the future as DeMar has some serious problems IMHO such as his coddling of hyperpreterists and inability to listen or understand basic points in conversations (as per a recent email exchange which was extremely disillusioning to my opinion).

[gharfish]

Relevance? I don't care if you like it. It is the truth - the sacred and cash cow of LaHay's futurist dispensationalism is being led to the slaughterhouse - and it is lowing and moaning the whole way.My point is, is that it makes no sense to call dispensationalism a "sacred cow" ...anymore than it would be to call calvinism a "sacred cow."



Does preterism, the theology itself, become a "cash cow" when it's authors make a profit off the writing about it ? Now, if you have an ethical problem with how LaHaye and Jenkins spend the money they have made, as authors, then get on with that.


The in-place, well ahead of time, interpretation that they base their fiction on is as legitimately orthodox as is preterism. The interpretational conclusions, mind you. You hate the conclusions--that view; LaHaye can be your target or it could be Lindsey. It depends on who is popularizing it the better/most at any given time, right ?!

I will admit that although I haven't ever read one of Jenkin's creations, I have read Thomas Ice's book, specifically written to explain and defend the theology behind the series, and I trust that he of all people would know whether or not LaHaye and Jenkins are being successful in adhering to--laboring to stay as true as possible to, the pre-trib., pre-millen., futurist, & dispensational view of prophecy. Ice wrote a book, you see, to answer it's VOCAL critics, like DeMar for example ...and now maybe it's Hanegraaff's turn being taken. A BTW, I've never known R.C. Sproul to go after futurist authors in a public way. As best I can tell, he simply teaches his view and leaves his fellow scholars on the other side alone.

But *remember: it's not their's, this eschatological view, but a widely respected one upheld by many many credible Biblical scholars. (You know this.)

Lastly, Xena, are you saying above that the Left Behind series is "slaughtering" the eschatology (they sincerely try) to base it on ?

Do you fear for it's fate, it's future--lowing and moaning as it is led to the slaughterhouse (?) If so, maybe you should be rather cheering-on the demise of it, via that series of books.



I have been fair in this thread, to everyone. Haven't I ? Unless you point out where I have not, I think it's time (tonight) to pull back on your dogma's leash just a little bit and cut me a break.

[gharfish]

:rofl:

You crack me up!!!!When you stop laughing, please respond to that question, using written words, OK ?

[dizzle]

No thanks, I prefer to yank your chain, and you rarely make much sense to me, and thus, to respond to your lengthy and strange posts is too much for this old gal.

(hint: You are inconsistent in that dispensationalists have been attacking non-dispies for years - yet now that people are starting to abandon that ship you cry about some other view allegedly attacking another - you are severely out of touch with reality - rant on :rofl: free entertainment is the best)

[dizzle]

You are soo strange.


Lastly, Xena, are you saying above that the Left Behind series is "slaughtering" the eschatology (they sincerely try) to base it on ?

No. I am glad of it.

Do you fear for it's fate, it's future--lowing and moaning as it is led to the slaughterhouse (?) If so, maybe you should be rather cheering-on the demise of it, via that series of books.

I am. :yipee:

[gharfish]

I'm curious to read Ice's book "refuting" Preterism someday. I wonder if he addresses actual Preterism or just erects and burns another strawman. :wink:If you are serious, then probably the very book that would be is: The End Time Controvery: The Second Coming Under Attack (LaHaye and Ice, Harvest House, 2003)

Darth Shepherd, have you ever heard of Charles C. Ryries's "Dispensationalism" (Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, 1995) ? It explains dispensationalism very well. It's recognized by most everybody as the classic work on the subject.



I read Ice's and Hitchcock's "The Truth Behind Left Behind: A Biblical View On The End Times" for one reason, and one reason only. That was to see for myself if the preterist heat that was being leveled at LaHaye on this board, by some, could fairly be about something other than a strong disliking of the eschatological view that book series is based on.

Now that I am satisfied that they do stick pretty well to it, I can understand with certainty that LaHaye & Jenkins come by their criticism the same way that Hal Lindsey did back when it was he who was the big guy associated with "it" --looming larger, against preterism's spread, than the popular buzz that Left Behind books are generating now......apparently to the dismay and frustration of [just a] few folks here.

[gharfish]

No thanks, I prefer to yank your chain, and you rarely make much sense to me, and thus, to respond to your lengthy and strange posts is too much for this old gal.The answer dosen't matter much to me.(hint: You are inconsistent in that dispensationalists have been attacking non-dispies for years - yet now that people are starting to abandon that ship you cry about some other view allegedly attacking another - you are severely out of touch with reality - rant on :rofl: free entertainment is the best)Oh, this is the answer--well, honest to God, I did not know that dispensationalists have been attacking non-dispensationaists for years. I didn't. Period.

I don't know what you mean (seriously) when you say I am "crying about some other view allegedly attacking another." I'm not out of touch with reality, but quite obviously I DON'T know nearly enough about this long history of this struggle, like you do. Eschatology isn't my thing; no. The personal eschatology of hell; yes.

For me, end times prophecy wasn't the big deal when I came to TWeb a couple of years ago. I had read several Lindsey books throughout the years; never heard of John Walvoord. It *became a thing because you and some of your attack dogma cronies got me good in a cooked up Hal Lindsey thread. Up until then I didn't even have a name for your view; it meant next to nothing to me. I had read R.C. Sproul's book in the very late 90's (?), I think, and only then knew that there was a competing view to futurism. I was greatly puzzled and, frankly, turned off by it. It was in error, I thought.

Since that one read, I have also heard only one preacher/teacher/scholar speak in the same way that I remember Sproul doing in that book. One man, after that one book; he was on TBN, once, and that also was before I came here to Tweb.

So, there you have it. I plead almost total ignorance, upon coming in here to TWeb, on the subject of preterism. When I got "bush whacked and dog packed" (this, according to Sheepdog) in "Hal Lindsey: Oracle," and still a newbie here, I had to scramble like hell to figure out who you people were !...all diving in on me at once. What was your view called ?...what is even the correct term I should know ? And what the frick was a dispy ?! I wasn't a dispensationalist (as far as I knew), despite the label being slapped hard onto me.

The grief you, Xena, have given me over Hal Lindsey, alone, is something I am finding hard to forget and forgive. It's taken a long time to try to see that you feel you must grapple roughly with people, too often, for disagreeing with you on partial (not even mild is right) preterism, as the one-and-only. You used me, and when I didn't know better either--and was just trying to defend what I thought was an assault [at the time] on the the character of someone I knew was someone with an excellent grasp on what's correct Christology, and is an evangelist at heart.


You are not above using people, big ones and small fries like me. Too zealous ! You've in two years gone from using Lindsey to using LaHaye. Why ? For his wildly popular Left Behind fiction book series, that's why. The strategy is simply to strike out at the biggest present day threat to the spreading of preterism. Can't you just go after the theology of Left Behind and criticize LaHaye for ONLY "other sins" he may be guilty of, like making too much money via the fiction Christian book route, for ex. ? And what of Jenkins in all this ?! Jenkins writes those books; LaHaye hasn't the talent for translation into fiction.


I get it: it requires a somebody, through the most popular representative at hand; this is the easiest and best way to expose futurism as a sham of some sort. If the personal touch is successful, that may result in a small way towards the realization of the Christian Church one day as a whole abandoning futurism for preterism.

Why can't the majority of preterist authors, now, stick to the subject matter and not go to naming names--be a whole lot cooler, like R,C. Sproul was in his book: "The Last Days According To Jesus" ? Did Sproul play off of Hal Lindsey ? Lindsey was still "the man" then, I think (not LaHaye, as a household word). I don't remember R.C. going about his work in that way. I can respect that.

[dizzle]

You are wound way too tight dude.

Eschatologically, Lindsey is a quack and an embarassment. I have no doubt he is spot on in other regards, as is LaHaye (I am a YEC like LaHaye and receive ICR material which he helped found). LaHaye is not the eschatological quack Lindsey was/is.

Why can't the majority of preterist authors, now, stick to the subject matter and not go to naming names--be a whole lot cooler, like R,C. Sproul was in his book: "The Last Days According To Jesus" ?

Tsk, tsk, are you naming names? You just can't see your own inconsistency. And your imputations of motives is duly noted - that is the dark underbelly of Christian debate - I heard it in a debate last night. People are only annihilationists because they don't like the idea of eternal torment, are threatened by it, etc ad nauseum. LaHaye isn't a credible threat to preterism - he is a popular level author, and not a particularly good one in my opinion, but he is well-known. Ice is better - but there are TWeb posters that I think are better than Ice. Left Behind is again IMHO an embarassment to futurists that I respect - many Tweb posters included, those who don't go off on half-cocked emotional rants on joke threads.

However, if it soothes you to believe all of your psychologization, knock yourself out.

I hereby demand that all fellow preterists change their byline to dogma attack cronies or something like that.

BTW - this will likely be my last post to you for a while - you are getting a bit too freaked out for my taste.

[gharfish]

You are wound way too tight dude.

Eschatologically, Lindsey is a quack and an embarassment. I have no doubt he is spot on in other regards, as is LaHaye (I am a YEC like LaHaye and receive ICR material which he helped found). LaHaye is not the eschatological quack Lindsey was/is.A quack and embarrassment to who ? Not you. I know better than you, because here we have learned that you are so naive and unstudied that you're a YEC. See how that works ? How intellectually embarrassed you must feel. Why ? --> Because I said so.Tsk, tsk, are you naming names? You just can't see your own inconsistency.I said I respected R.C. Sproul ! I really respect him as a theologian, over all, and the way he conducts himself in promoting preterism. How did you miss that ?? Read & understand my posts through, please, or leave my posts alone altogether.

Yeah, yeah, I'm wound too tight; thank you for helping me out in that BTW. I'll leave, because I did what the OP called for in this thread.....and I wasn't looking for a fight. Let's see how much of a response y'all get from the dispies here in the next thread designed to interest people of my ilk into talking about y'all's pretersim. I predict it'll be:

[Geek Eclectic]

The Second Coming Under Attack [/I](LaHaye and Ice, Harvest House, 2003)I might check it out, but if the title's any indication their arguments have nothing to do with traditional Preterism. Preterists uphold the future physical return of Jesus, in which He comes to judge the quick and the dead, quite vehemently. It is an orthodox eschatological system in that it upholds the major creeds of the church in full. In other words, the title of this book is in and of itself a strawman, and I hope it's not an indicator of the quality of the material inside.

I see two possibilities with a title like that. One is that they do not understand Preterism at all, something I'm inclined to believe given their writings on the subject that I'm familiar with. In this case, they are setting up and attacking a strawman. The other is that they are not attacking traditional Preterism at all, but rather hyperpreterism -- a belief system that does deny the future coming of Jesus. A more charitable title for that heretical belief system is full preterism, but more accurate titles are pantelism and neohymenaeanism.

I'll read it, but I don't have very high hopes.

[gharfish]

"And your imputations of motives is duly noted - that is the dark underbelly of Christian debate - I heard it in a debate last night. People are only annihilationists because they don't like the idea of eternal torment, are threatened by it, etc ad nauseum. LaHaye isn't a credible threat to preterism - he is a popular level author, and not a particularly good one in my opinion, but he is well-known. Ice is better - but there are TWeb posters that I think are better than Ice. Left Behind is again IMHO an embarassment to futurists that I respect - many Tweb posters included, those who don't go off on half-cocked emotional rants on joke threads.

However, if it soothes you to believe all of your psychologization, knock yourself out.

I hereby demand that all fellow preterists change their byline to dogma attack cronies or something like that.

BTW - this will likely be my last post to you for a while - you are getting a bit too freaked out for my taste.No, not all fellow preterists; just a handful, Xena.

And now what in the world does my interest in personal eschatology (hell) have to do with this ? I'm not opposing traditionalist authors. Never have I said anything about anyone on the other side. I don't argue by attempted dissection of big opponents to my pet dogma, like say the respected scholar Norman Geisler. If I had a problem with Robert Peterson's high profile vocal opposition to it, for ex,. I wouldn't go after his material; I simply would present my case for annihilationism. I'd leave the man/the men, their books, out of it. "Now you go and do the same."



Hmm. All this, above, was not a part of what I saw in your last post. Odd. I put up all that was there at the time (I responded to it all). It had completely ended with these two sentences: "Tsk, tsk, are you naming names? You just can't see your own inconsistency." I replied that I respected R.C. Sproul, and (anybody can go and see...)

Give it a rest. My posts have not been either "strange " nor have I been "freaked out" on this thread. Cook up some gratuitous drama.

You are the one (not me) who has been jabbing below the belt.....like three or four times as a matter of fact. Sour little McPosts. A false accustation. You suckered me in; good going ! Q: Was I not being civil and quite fair to all before you began your posting to me ? A: Why, yes, Yes I was.

You lost your cool. And now these parting shots: so thank you for the "pathologically stupid" sections that I have put in bolded text. How nice of you to remember that difficult time (Bandecoot's death), that thread.

Oh, and I just ruined everybody's fun too, didn't I ?! :baby:



No, I think I will see you posting to me again alot sooner than anybody might have expected. It will be something very familiar, along the lines of "Tim LaHaye is the antichrist !"

Much more likely you will swoop down out of nowhere and announce: "Stand back everybody, ghar's head is about to explode !" You may have even, in advance, tried in those little ways of your's (maybe in concert with others too ?) to getting closer to seeing "that" maybe happen. At least, you sorely hope it might. So that habitually razzing, for no good reason, makes you one classy lady in my book.

[gharfish]

I might check it out, but if the title's any indication their arguments have nothing to do with traditional Preterism. Preterists uphold the future physical return of Jesus, in which He comes to judge the quick and the dead, quite vehemently. It is an orthodox eschatological system in that it upholds the major creeds of the church in full. In other words, the title of this book is in and of itself a strawman, and I hope it's not an indicator of the quality of the material inside.

I see two possibilities with a title like that. One is that they do not understand Preterism at all, something I'm inclined to believe given their writings on the subject that I'm familiar with. In this case, they are setting up and attacking a strawman. The other is that they are not attacking traditional Preterism at all, but rather hyperpreterism -- a belief system that does deny the future coming of Jesus. A more charitable title for that heretical belief system is full preterism, but more accurate titles are pantelism and neohymenaeanism.

I'll read it, but I don't have very high hopes.Believe me, those guys are orthodox right on down the line. Very. But you are right: the subtitle is not quite right. Confusing really. I know they both do see a pre-trib rapture--seven years later the second advent of Jesus Christ.....the beginning of the millennial earthly reign for Him. The subtitle is poorly worded. I hadn't thought enough about that. I've not seen the book in the bookstores around here (that I can remember). I have no interest in LaHaye's non-fiction writings anyway. I do enjoy John Walvoord's however. Anyway...

I know that book's title only because it is at the top of the page in the introduction notes (back of book), as "For a refutation of preterism, see....." in Ice and Hitchcock's "The Truth Behind Left Behind: A Biblical View Of The End Times."

I read that book just to see if LaHaye were [still] sticking close enough to the eschatology that he has always been strongly in agreement with--has written extensively on, prior to the fiction series with Jenkins. I figured Thomas Ice would be the ideal man to appraise the series for it's good "stickiness." And he was, and still is, personally engaged in the active ongoing debate between the two main sides.

It was with this in mind that when I found him reviewing Hanegraaff's book, he would be the ultimate reviewer I figured that "we, on this side" might have (still living, anyway), and so I put a link to that article archived on Preteristarchives.com. Since Ice says that Hanegraaff is going hard against LaHaye in his "The Apocalypse Code," I provided a link to LaHaye's website--a FAQ section--an abbreviation--on [his take on] preterism.

[dizzle]

Here is the only Christ-like way to resolve the situation. Gar, I apologize if I have been a jerk to you.

[spiritmech]

I didn't see this thread til just now. I started a similar thread a few months ago. Probably the most lasting effect of reading Apocalypse Code is Hank's critique of Israel as a basically racist state. At first I was mad at him, but now I think he's right.

sm

[dizzle]

I didn't see this thread til just now. I started a similar thread a few months ago. Probably the most lasting effect of reading Apocalypse Code is Hank's critique of Israel as a basically racist state. At first I was mad at him, but now I think he's right.

sm

SM, I haven't finished the book, but I didn't get that impression at all. What he did do though was dispell the rose-coloured glasses of the reality of the Israel's formation. That the Palestinians are not entirely without merit in their claims. Now that doesn't to me invalidate Israel - America got her land from taking it from others as well. Those are just facts of history - but we Christians tend to have an unrealistic view of Israel's history, and we as Christians shamefully ignore Arab Christians - Arab Christians that were displaced back then.

I think more of what Hank is doing is showing that dispensational theology has a racist (and I am using the term in a morally neutral way as I will try to show) basis. It categorizes people on the basis of ethnicity - that is racism. Now they may think it is a kind of justified racism, but it is a kind of racism. Just like I am a kind of sexist. Not in the negative sense, but I believe there are religious roles for men and for women sheerly on the basis of their gender. Someone who was to point out that I do so, and who thinks I am wrong, would be justified from their paradigm to see me as such. I think dispensationalism is wrong, and thus its racism unjustified.

When I read the reviews of Hank's book, I expected much stronger points from him - i.e. there was almost a hysteria about how he called LaHaye a racist and a blasphemer. I have said things much stronger. LaHaye claims that the antichrist will duplicate Christ's resurrection. That is blasphemy. Let's get the emotion out of this if at all possible people....

[spiritmech]

:shrug:

[Ted]

DD,

John Noe and Ed Stevens are good Christians, however misguided their eschatology. And having their written works in hand helps me deal with their arguments accurately.

To all,

This is one of the more entertaining threads I've followed in a while. Keep it up.

As for the discussion of one author tearing another down, there are some difficulties. Dispy is one such area. It has, classic, progressive, pretrib, posttrib, midtrib, prewrath and who knows how many other variations? So which one do you tackle? I'd go the same direction HH did. I'd tackle the street dispy that sold millions of books. It's the one that most people follow, and we call it pretrib dispy premillennialism. I'd tackle it's best-known proponents, LaHaye, Ice, Hindson, Lindsay and so on.

The problem with attacking a position is that you can be seen to attack a person. In an academic review of my book, one Dispy noted that I was careful to only deal with theology, not personalities. That's hard to do and effectively tackle grave errors. For example, how could I be kind in describing 42 pages of "exegesis" on the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls that never used an OT reference to help?

I ran into this difficulty as I wrote I Want to be Left Behind. I also found that it was not good only to tear down a position (as we often appropriately do on a discussion board like this). So the early part of the book is mostly tear-down, and the latter is mostly build-up.

BTW, don't be too hard on Tommy Ice. I know him personally, and he is a kind, gentle, but misguided Christian. His problem is he leans on "the end of the age" in Matt 24:3, properly linked to chapter 13, then ignores AD70 in both the question and the answer up to at least verse 25.

Ted

[dizzle]

Ted

Ed and John are preaching damnable heresy and placed themselves outside of the historic Christian faith. If I ever had any of their books, they would be placed right next to the few JW works I have, such as "Should You Believe in the Trinity"

[Ted]

Ted

Ed and John are preaching damnable heresy and placed themselves outside of the historic Christian faith. If I ever had any of their books, they would be placed right next to the few JW works I have, such as "Should You Believe in the Trinity"

I agree that they are wrong in their eschatology. But would you please list a part of eschatology that is required for salvation? If I've overstated the case, it will be helpful for the onlookers.

Ted

[dizzle]

I have expounded upon this in an article

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrengrave.html

[Ted]

OK. In short, they deny the bodily resurrection. Paul closely relates this to Christ's resurrection, which in 1 Cor 15 he calls "of first importance."

Ed Stevens tries to get around this in his booklet "Expectations Demand a First Century Rapture." I've written him regarding his numerous errors. He has graciously ignored most of my comments.

Ted

[dizzle]

That isn't the whole thrust, but that is the main point. I outline the entire thrust in the article. Sam Frost attempted to respond (I am being generous with the word "respond") and my rebuttal to him is link in the beginning of that article, but here it is for your persual

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenfrosty.html

[gharfish]

Here is the only Christ-like way to resolve the situation. Gar, I apologize if I have been a jerk to you.I also want to be reconciled to you. I have been harsh myself. I'm trying to approach this subject without taking things too personally. I did get sarcastic with Darth Shepherd early on. He was subsequently more--well, truly kind, with me than I had expected him to. So, I feel bad about that. He works hard, I know, to welcome newcomers to TWeb. I admire that alot--his generousity and caring.

It's my own fault that I will not let go of past hurts. It's unfortunate, all around, I suppose. Johnny EC (Cynic Sage) and I still are fuming at one another over his "What I Learned From Christian Comics" thread, that was famously split-off into my "whining" about, with Bandecoot thread. A moderator did honor my request at some time while I was gone from TWeb, after Bandecoot's passing, and took out the word "whining."

I admit I was drawn, in part, to spiritmech's earlier thread on this same book (Hanegraaff's) because I held a grudge. I "saw" that he wasn't admitting it was a prophetically (preterist) book. What I saw though was wrong. In my haste I failed to even notice that the thread was in the Eschatology forum ! The grudge lived.


~Back to today:

Didn't I know that putting up a link to Thomas Ice's review of The Apocalypse Code would inevitably lead to things getting personal, somehow.....yes, probably just given enough time (?) I haven't read the book, so putting up that link, or LaHaye's FAQ, from preterstarchives.com, although it fulfilled the wish/invitation of the OP, was likely not going to be productive. I shouldn't have gone to preteristarchives.com to begin with !

If I couldn't personally verify that Ice was playing fair in his review then maybe I made a poor choice. Or, perhaps the resulting sort of internal-only debate (I'm the only dispy who showed here) nevertheless did serve to illuminate the general clashing of opinions and actual clashing of scholars: futurism 'vs.' preterism.

Thank you for being so gracious, Dee Dee. I promise I will do my best not to incite passions that needlessly, [I]pointlessly, do not serve to better understandings of the theologies themselves, but fall so short that all they could do is invite hard feelings to develop between fellow Christians.

Your fellow in our Lord Jesus,
Vance

[dizzle]

Sounds like a good plan Gar for both of us.

[gharfish]

Yes, let's go with it ! We are.

[dizzle]

I am further into the book, and I still think it is very good. There are some Hankism writing quirks which are personally annoying, but the material is very good. However, for Hank not to state that what he is asserting is indeed preterism, to me, is just silly. I will deal with that in the review I am writing for Tekton.

He does go after LaHaye's interpretations quite strenously, but I think that i justified as LaHaye is the most popular promoter of the view Hank is opposing and LaHaye has influenced vast numbers of people. I am beginning to see part of Hank's burden and motivation, and I can commisserate. Hank sees that this controversy reaches outside the Christian circle moreso than some other controversies in that Jesus' timing statements are frequently cited by those opposed to Christianity and are given as reasons for why the Christian faith is false. He sees (though he didn't word it this way) dispensational interpretation as an infantilization of hermeneutics.

Now one particularly biting chapter, but one that I did enjoy very much for I think he used a great example to contrast is entitled the Grammatical Principle. His main example that he uses is Clinton's gyrations on "it depends upon what "is" is" and his manuevers with "alone" and "sex." To me, it provided a very good backdrop on our natural baloney detectors, as he put it.

Hank does use sarcasm as a means of making a point, which is not his typical MO. Here is an example (which since I tend to be somewhat sarcastic, I did enjoy):

LaHayes chastises "prophecy preachers" who take the text [the one involving 200 million horsemen in Revelation - DDW] literally, because, as he put it, "the logistics of moving an army of 200 million from the Orient across the Euphrates and the Arabian Desert to the little land of Israel seems impossible." Evidently, moving every mountain and island out of its former place is eminently more feasible than moving an army from the Orient to Israel.

[The Silent Q]

He does go after LaHaye's interpretations quite strenously, but I think that i justified as LaHaye is the most popular promoter of the view Hank is opposing and LaHaye has influenced vast numbers of people. I am beginning to see part of Hank's burden and motivation, and I can commisserate. Hank sees that this controversy reaches outside the Christian circle moreso than some other controversies in that Jesus' timing statements are frequently cited by those opposed to Christianity and are given as reasons for why the Christian faith is false. He sees (though he didn't word it this way) dispensational interpretation as an infantilization of hermeneutics.

There's a good book that addresses those subjects, particularly dispensationalism's influence outside of Christianity. It's by Paul Boyer entitled When Time Shall Be No More (http://www.amazon.com/When-Time-Shall-Be-More/dp/0674951298/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2385253-0727101?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182357856&sr=8-1). It is a bit old (early 90s I think?) so it's mindset is a little different than a post-9/11 perspective, but I think people who have read Hanks' book will probably be interested in reading this one also.

[gharfish]

".....Hank sees that this controversy reaches outside the Christian circle moreso than some other controversies in that Jesus' timing statements are frequently cited by those opposed to Christianity and are given as reasons for why the Christian faith is false.And so this is perhaps consistent with:

"Beloved, I am now writing [you].....that you should recall the predictions of the holy prophets.....'To begin with, you must know and understand this, that scoffers (mockers) will come in the last days with scoffing, [people who] walk after their own fleshly desires
And say, Where is the promise of His coming ? For since the forefathers fell aslpeep, all things have continued exactly as they did from the beginning of creation.
For they willfully overlook and forget this [fact], that the heavens [came into] existence long ago by the word of God, and the earth also which was formed out of the water,
Through Which the world that then [existed] was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been stored up (reserved) for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly people.
Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises, according to some people's conception of slowness, but He is long-suffering (extraordinarily patient) toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentence.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will vanish (pass away) with a thunderous crash, and the [material] elements [of the universe] will be disolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up."

~the Lord's disciple, Peter.

I say let the opposition count it as a proof of falsehood.He sees (though he didn't word it this way) dispensational interpretation as an infantilization of hermeneutics.And yet that is the opinion of one scholar, right ? A "for ex.": I am just as inclined to trust the conclusions of Ryrie, Chafer, or Walvoord as I am Hank Hanegraaff's. Top notch biblical scholars disagree.Now one particularly biting chapter, but one that I did enjoy very much for I think he used a great example to contrast is entitled the Grammatical Principle. His main example that he uses is Clinton's gyrations on "it depends upon what "is" is" and his manuevers with "alone" and "sex." To me, it provided a very good backdrop on our natural baloney detectors, as he put it.

Hank does use sarcasm as a means of making a point, which is not his typical MO. Here is an example (which since I tend to be somewhat sarcastic, I did enjoy):

LaHayes chastises "prophecy preachers" who take the text [the one involving 200 million horsemen in Revelation - DDW] literally, because, as he put it, "the logistics of moving an army of 200 million from the Orient across the Euphrates and the Arabian Desert to the little land of Israel seems impossible." Evidently, moving every mountain and island out of its former place is eminently more feasible than moving an army from the Orient to Israel.I wonder from where (the source) does Hanegraaff get this quote ? [I]This which reveals that LaHaye does not believe that the 200 million cavalry of Rev. 9: 16 (which are described in appearance in the next verse, and belonging to "the four angels" of the preceding two verses) is seemingly impossible a move, logistically, to him ?

And I wonder how he goes about this, as Hanegraaff puts it: "chastises prophect teachers for taking this literally" ? What is said. Does he say to them it's seemingly impossible or definitely impossible ?

Regardless, this is what I have said I objected to earlier; that the manner of arguing against an entire eschatology based on the specific conclusions--this and that's, of one man within the whole is illegitimate. Here is one man's opinion on a point. "It" belongs to many scholars afterall. That LaHaye is the most popular proponent right now is irrelevant to the larger argument.
I was not aware that LaHaye definitely did not take the number literally. If so, he is the 'exception to the rule' there, as far as I have seen. Therefore, Hanegraaff noting an interpretational rule disconnect, of sorts (as quoted above, from his book) is kind of silly. If accurately presented, here by Hanegraaff, it is nevertheless would still be just a peculiarity that is LaHaye's; not in keeping with most of his fellows.

So...what book or article or interview, etc., I wonder ? Source or sources ?

Also, do we conclude now that LaHaye believes that every mountain and island will be physically moved [completely] out of the place where it was formerly located ?
I wonder from what statement or statements of LaHaye's did Hanegraaff get that he does believe that that will indeed "literally" happen ?

[dizzle]

And so this is perhaps consistent with:

Perhaps if you can dismiss the other timing statements, but even within a preterist paradigm, not so. There are two opinions

1. (Gentry) This is referring to the Second Coming and thus is inapplicable to the point that there was a first century coming being referred to by Christ in the verses in question

2. (DeMar) This does refer to the judgment of Jerusalem and as it wore on without happening, people were scoffing.

To use this passage to dismiss the very real objections of sceptics that there appears to be false prophecy based upon the timing statements given in Scripture seems to state then timing statements are irrelevant. But why then were they even given.

And yet that is the opinion of one scholar, right ?

No. That is a very standard opinion among many. That did not originate with Hank, in fact, I don't think he claims to much "original" in this book which is heavily end-noted with citations from earlier works.

I am just as inclined to trust the conclusions of Ryrie, Chafer, or Walvoord as I am Hank Hanegraaff's.

Why? We must look to the text then for the answer.

Top notch biblical scholars disagree.

No one said there wasn't competent disagreement on all sides. That isn't a refutation, it is a truism.

I wonder from where (the source) does Hanegraaff get this quote ? This which reveals that LaHaye does not believe that the 200 million cavalry of Rev. 9: 16 (which are described in appearance in the next verse, and belonging to "the four angels" of the preceding two verses) is seemingly impossible a move, logistically, to him ?

LaHaye and Jenkins, "Are We Living in the End Times" page 191 is given as the source.

And I wonder how he goes about this, as Hanegraaff puts it: "chastises prophect teachers for taking this literally" ?

Other than the quote given, I don't have that original source in front of me.


Is it seemingly impossible or definitely impossible, in LaHaye's opinion ?

A direct quote from LaHaye was given that it "seems impossible."

Regardless, this is what I have said I objected to earlier; that the manner of arguing against an entire eschatology based on the specific conclusions--this and that's, of one man within the whole is illegitimate. "It" belongs to many scholars afterall. That he is the most popular proponent right now is irrelevant to the larger argument.

You have not read the book so I don't think you can really argue for the argument's legitimacy or not in that manner - he uses LaHaye as a springboard, but not just him alone. As I said, the book is heavily end-noted. Plus, as this is a very introductory and popular level piece, it seems appropriate to interact with the equivalent of futurist offerings.

I was not aware that LaHaye definitely did not take the number literally. If so, he is the 'exception to the rule' there, as far as I have seen. Therefore, Hanegraaff noting an interpretational rule disconnect, of sorts (as quoted above, from his book) is kind of silly.

He uses it as an example of interpretational rule disconnects which happen in various forms in futurism. If he didn't give a specific example, he would be criticized for not doing so. Again, for the scope of his piece, I think it was very effective. The Clinton analogy was very clever.

If accurately presented, here by Hanegraaff, it is nevertheless would still be just a peculiarity that is LaHaye's; not in keeping with most of his fellows.

But the disconnect is not peculiar (and the source is LaHaye AND Ice). I doubt LaHaye would go so far as one poster we had here on the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, in which since the dimensions were given, this poster calculated the average number of people that could "fit" within such dimensions and thus logically and literally that is all that could be saved. He couldn't answer my question if his calculations would be impacted if there were fat people present.



So...what book or article or interview, etc., I wonder ? Source or sources ?

LaHaye and Jenkins, "Are We Living in the End Times" pages 185-186

Also, do we conclude now that LaHaye believes that every mountain and island will be physically moved [completely] out of the place where it was formerly located ?

Yes. It is what he and Ice teach.

I wonder from what statement or statements of LaHaye's did Hanegraaff get that he does believe that that will indeed "literally" happen ?

LaHaye and Jenkins, "Are We Living in the End Times" pages 185-186

[dizzle]

I reached the halfway point today. Hank also seems to focus quite a bit of interaction on Ehrman as well, again though at a very popular level. My one complaint is that the book seems to have lacked a good editor. Why?

Hank repeats himself needlessly using exact phrases in an annoying way - I really think I could go without reading "subjective flights of fancy" one more time

I caught some uses of wrong words that an editor should have caught - I think was that one time the word should have been designated and it was designed.

There were some just obvious typesetting issues - a strange space in the middle of a block quote and a sentence missing a period. These are just things I noticed not even trying to sit down and look for those things. I am reading this material pretty rapidly for me since it is again, very basic, and very familiar to me.

[gharfish]

Perhaps if you can dismiss the other timing statements, but even within a preterist paradigm, not so. There are two opinions

1. (Gentry) This is referring to the Second Coming and thus is inapplicable to the point that there was a first century coming being referred to by Christ in the verses in question

2. (DeMar) This does refer to the judgment of Jerusalem and as it wore on without happening, people were scoffing.

To use this passage to dismiss the very real objections of sceptics that there appears to be false prophecy based upon the timing statements given in Scripture seems to state then timing statements are irrelevant. But why then were they even given.Well, I agree with Gentry in that Peter is referring there (in 2 Peter 3) to the second coming "return" of Jesus, from Heaven, in "the last days." (Do I ?) But I do not agree that in any of Jesus' timing statements that he made it clear--no, not at all, that he was going to return in this way in the first century.

You had said that "I am beginning to see part of Hank's burden and motivation, and I can commisserate."

So, then Hanegraaff is burdened and motivated to speak up to (against) "LaHaye's interpretations" right ? And these are specifically LaHaye's interpretations of "Jesus' timing statements." Is this an accurate reading of what you have said, Darth Xena ?



I haven't read Hank's book so I cannot know what timing statements Hanegraaff is talking about, up to where you had gotten into that book; the ones that, because they have been misinterpreted by LaHaye, are often being used--"frequently cited by those opposed to Christianity as reasons for why the Christian faith is false." And these misinterpretations of Jesus' timing statements result in a "controversy that reaches outside the Christian circle moreso than some other other controversies." ~Right ?

At the bottom line, LaHaye's interpretaions are rather generic pre-trib, premillen., futurist ones, aren't they ? This general eschatological view predominates, and I would say it's not without good reasons to either (Biblical enough).


I still charge that these opponents of Christianity should be LEFT to worry about whether or not Jesus made false prophecies about his second coming. They have the same Bible easily available to them, to try to interpret. The absolutely clear conclusions that must be drawn have never been there for ANYBODY, have they ?!

I remember from kind of long ago our Taoist making fun, a bit, about Jesus' 2000 year absence. But, he was aware that there was another radically different interpretation well in place, and I think realized that at least he couldn't technically call into question Jesus' prophetic abilities ! He said to me without missing a step that Mt. 24: 34's "this generation" was known by others to be not "this race." So, was that a small victory for our side ? Nah !

Let the citing this-and-that, opposed to Christianity, skeptics do so. They'll play both sides against the other. Let them employ that, along with using the various other (many) things they'll point to, as a disproof of Jesus' divinity. He's never coming back, they scoff and mock. Peter speaks firmly to these people !

Does spiritualizing and allegorizing those timing statements help matters, really ? If successfully done to Jesus' 'timing' statements, Christianity is thought by some to be made less vulnerable to criticism from without. *This is my opinion.* This much too subjective a way of interpreting them is what I suspect that Hanegraaff has done. I could be wrong/ haven't read the book. But, from what I have seen in the press surrounding this cocksure new paradigm of Hanegraaff's, my take is that this is likely just a rehashing of the (same old) way that Hank, too, is going about in handling and relieving that burden of Jesus' (questionable ?) credibilty.

It's self-imposed, I say ! It's not our problem.{No. That is a very standard opinion among many. That did not originate with Hank, in fact, I don't think he claims to much "original" in this book which is heavily end-noted with citations from earlier works.}If I am correct, this has to do with my response to this previous statement, from you: "He [Hanegraaff] sees (though he didn't word it in this way) dispensational interpretation as an infantilzation of hermeneutics."

I had replied that, Wasn't this the conclusions of one scholar, here ? And that, Why should I count his opinion (that dispensationalism is a failure to reach a mature interpretation) to be any more worthy than a good many competent scholars who say it isn't ?


I do agree with you: we must personally look to the prophetic texts for answers, rather than just too easily following the conclusions of [even the best] scholars. I think both sides are doing just that. Right ?
It's true; my appeal to, say, Ryrie as just as credible a scholar to trust as is Hanegraaff, was not--no-- a refutation of Hanegraaff's "dispensationalism as as infantilization..." vision --> What it is "he sees" and believes.

I didn't mean for it to serve as a refutation. You are right: just a truism there.(Why? We must look to the text then for the answer.)(No one said there wasn't competent disagreement on all sides. That isn't a refutation, it is a truism.)(LaHaye and Jenkins,[I] "Are We Living in the End Times" page 191 is given as the source.I know this is a confusing mess, with my quoting out of turn. I'm sorry. I need to do a "triple-quote," or something to properly document the give-and-take.

This source, from Hanegraaff, on Lahaye, is about LaHaye thinking it seemingly impossible ("seems impossible," in my notes) that the "twenty thousand of of tens thousands" strong cavalry of Rev. 9: 13-19 could manage to cross the River Euphrates and move into Israel. So we now know from "Are we Living In The End Times ? that both he and co-author Jenkins think it seemingly impossible, logistically.

That leaves me wondering if the two of them have big problems with the large number--or--do they not believe the 200 million to be humans; rather they are demons ? Is there simply not enough room for such an army coming from the Orient ?
I would be shocked if they contended that Rev. 9: 1 -on, weren't demons, led by [another] whose name whether in Hebrew or Greek means "destroyer." I really don't know what LaHaye and Jenkins think on these two Rev. 9 issues.

As for verses 16 & 17; from what I have read, the consensus on their side is that the number is to be taken literally and that the participants are human, incited to violence by the freed four fallen angels of Rev. 9: 14-15, to, together, "kill a third of humanity." From the time of Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" in 1970, these "kings of/from the east" have remained to be almost universally thought to be Chinese military forces. More recently, I remember some futurists authors have ID'd India as perhaps also contributing to such a huge military force--soldiers and their vehicles and support troops that would comprise such a massive assault.You have not read the book so I don't think you can really argue for the argument's legitimacy or not in that manner - he uses LaHaye as a springboard, but not just him alone. As I said, the book is heavily end-noted. Plus, as this is a very introductory and popular level piece, it seems appropriate to interact with the equivalent of futurist offerings.I think I can argue on the illegitimacy of the doing to pre-trib., premillen., futurisim, dispensationalism, what I see being done by Hanegraaff in the quote you provided. I don't doubt that he uses other people in addition to LaHaye and Jenkins to springboard his personal views. But LaHaye's views, if they depart from the norm, shouldn't be used to demonstrate some kind of Clintonesque double speak.

Is Hanegraaff in rather firm agreement with the others "of his kind" who have already had their say in print ?...likely move than once (?) Were he to be inconsistent with the DeMars and Gentrys and Sprouls on interpretational points, would that be scandalous ? No, of course not.
That LaHaye "chastises prophecy teachers" for them to think it definitely possible that the 200 million horsemen could advance in a column/s towards the holy land, across the Euphrates R. is no big deal.


Now, I understand that Hanegraaff says that LaHaye 'AND Ice' teach that it is "literally so" that, 1. ("The sky was split apart like a scroll being rolled up, (and every mountain and island was moved from this place." 2. And probably literally believe too, from Rev. 16: 20-21, that "Every island fled away and no mountains could be found. (And gigantic hailstones, weighing about a hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people, but they blasphemed God because of the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous."); that this will happen in the future.

They probably do affirm the great earthquake, beginning in v. 16 - 18, happening as well in the Day of the Lord. Perhaps LaHaye and Ice would say that undoubtedly major geographic and topological changes will accompany the Day of the Lord. The sky being split apart and rolling up like a scroll could be a description of the atmospheric phenomenon seen when a nuclear bomb is detonated. John described, as best he could (from the "eyes" of a first century man) a vision of things to come.

How do you, a preterist, interpret the verses above ? For, ex., a third of humanity is killed--was killed--how, when, & why in the past ? How was that fulfilled ? Who, or what, do you say is the 200 million strong cavalry that did it ? ...in the first century ?He uses it as an example of interpretational rule disconnects which happen in various forms in futurism. If he didn't give a specific example, he would be criticized for not doing so. Again, for the scope of his piece, I think it was very effective. The Clinton analogy was very clever.I think you know what the interpretational rule is, don't you ?! What is the dispy's rule ? And, there are various forms of nearly every "ism" under the Christian umbrella.But the disconnect is not peculiar (and the source is LaHaye AND Ice).It's unremarkable, is what it is.I doubt LaHaye would go so far as one poster we had here on the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, in which since the dimensions were given, this poster calculated the average number of people that could "fit" within such dimensions and thus logically and literally that is all that could be saved. He couldn't answer my question if his calculations would be impacted if there were fat people present.No, I'm with you; I doubt LaHaye would go so far as did that poster here.

[dizzle]

Gar, I hope to respond to your post once I am completely done with the book (I have read the main text, next I am going to examine and thoroughly read the end-notes - I hate endnotes, I wish it had footnotes instead) and after I have written my promised review for Tekton.

[gharfish]

This is how I do my late night, last-minute, reading. My wife calls it the bathroom; I say it's a library once she officially goes to bed. :potty:

[Littlejoe9763]

I'm about a 1/3 of the way through the book. It seems pretty basic as DeeDee said. But it seems to be solid. As a former dispy/futurist, I am enjoying the foundational aspects of the book. It definitely answers a few questions for those who are confused by futurist's.

LJ

[dizzle]

I'm about a 1/3 of the way through the book. It seems pretty basic as DeeDee said. But it seems to be solid. As a former dispy/futurist, I am enjoying the foundational aspects of the book. It definitely answers a few questions for those who are confused by futurist's.

LJ

My review is done and should be posted at Tektonics some time this week. Did you see JP is cited in the endnotes?

[dizzle]

But I do not agree that in any of Jesus' timing statements that he made it clear--no, not at all, that he was going to return in this way in the first century.

Well we will have to agree to disagree, I think it is about as plain as it could be.

You had said that "I am beginning to see part of Hank's burden and motivation, and I can commisserate."

So, then Hanegraaff is burdened and motivated to speak up to (against) "LaHaye's interpretations" right ? And these are specifically LaHaye's interpretations of "[I]Jesus' timing statements." Is this an accurate reading of what you have said, Darth Xena ?

Huh? I can commisserate that Hank's motivation is to defend the integrity of the Bible against sceptical claims that are easily answered and not unreasonable claims.

I haven't read Hank's book so I cannot know what timing statements Hanegraaff is talking about, up to where you had gotten into that book; the ones that, because they have been misinterpreted by LaHaye, are often being used--"frequently cited by those opposed to Christianity as reasons for why the Christian faith is false." And these misinterpretations of Jesus' timing statements result in a "controversy that reaches outside the Christian circle moreso than some other other controversies." ~Right ?

I am having trouble following you, but I think you have it right. Many works cite these verses as among the top reasons they think Christianity is false.

At the bottom line, LaHaye's interpretaions are rather generic pre-trib, premillen., futurist ones, aren't they ? This general eschatological view predominates, and I would say it's not without good reasons to either (Biblical enough).

Actually I think it is without the better reasons.

I still charge that these opponents of Christianity should be LEFT to worry about whether or not Jesus made false prophecies about his second coming. They have the same Bible easily available to them, to try to interpret. The absolutely clear conclusions that must be drawn have never been there for ANYBODY, have they ?!

I believe that we are called to give an answer. If others followed your reasoning Gar, I would have apostasized - many of these sceptics were former professed believers and this is a big reason for their apostasy.

I remember from kind of long ago our Taoist making fun, a bit, about Jesus' 2000 year absence. But, he was aware that there was another radically different interpretation well in place, and I think realized that at least he couldn't technically call into question Jesus' prophetic abilities ! He said to me without missing a step that Mt. 24: 34's "this generation" was known by others to be not "this race." So, was that a small victory for our side ? Nah !

Many sceptics do not, and many struggling Christians do not. Of course it will outwardly simply harden some people in their unbelief but that should not be an argument against.

I only dealt with the one point for it is what I had time to do.

[Geek Eclectic]

I'm reading the book now, and am on the second chapter. While I agree with most of the actual information that is presented so far, I can say that HH hits on one of my personal pet peeves -- blatant misuse of the word literal.

He quotes sproul as saying "To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature." No. No. No. No. No. In fact, I checked dictionary.com, which references a bunch of different dictionaries, and not a single definition comes even close. And the closest reference to this particular use I could find was actually a critique on the misuse of the word literal. From the Online Etymology Dictionary, "Literally is often used erroneously, even by writers like Dryden and Pope, to indicate 'what follows must be taken in the strongest admissible sense' (1687), which is opposite to the word's real meaning."

At least with dispensationalists, I know that they mean "literally" when they say "literally," even though in actuality their exegesis is no more literal than the exegesis of proponents of other eschatologies. But in this case, I find the misuse to be especially annoying because HH himself explains that when he says literal, he doesn't actually mean anything remotely close to literal, but he's going to continue to willfully misuse the word anyway! If he really wanted to keep the L in lights, there is a perfectly good L-word that means exactly what he wants "literal" to mean -- it's called "literary."

I really hate it because the first chapter, except for this one horrible mistake, was otherwise excellent. Also, he continues the mistake into the second chapter, and because of his own misuse his critiques of Maher and LaHaye are . . . well, actually they're still right, but not in the sense that Hanegraaf intends. It's just . . . so . . . annoying. It shouldn't be called the "literal principle" unless it's actually literal, which it's not. :rant:

[Jin-Roh]

Perhpas he should've had "L" stand for "Literture" instead.

[Geek Eclectic]

I already said "literary," which would keep it an adjective since it would be describing the noun "principle." But yeah -- it's just one of my big linguistic pet peeves. I cannot stand when someone uses the word "literal" to mean its exact opposite, and continues to use the word -- what is it about that particular word that makes people want to use it so darn much even when it doesn't apply? Why do they not instead choose a word that actually fits the definition they are trying to communicate? There are over 3 million English words to choose from -- it's not that hard.

Back on topic, I finished the chapter on the Lit* Principle last night. It was really good except for that one word. I also finished the Illumination chapter, which was even better. I learned things about Darby and the Plymouth Brethren that I had never heard before -- who knew their best scholars rejected his two peoples of God rhetoric? Put your hand down, Dee Dee! :tongue: I also loved his example of Darwinism and eugenics to illustrate the logical conclusions of certain ideas before he moved on to explaining the inherent racism of dispensationalism and its negative effects throughout the past century.

I'm really torn about Israel now. I've never been a particularly pro-Israel person, especially since becoming a Preterist, but I always assumed they were better than the alternative. The story of Palestinian Christians being rounded up and shoved into Nazareth made my skin crawl, especially considering that it was Christians who were primarily responsible for their being able to move back into the area in the first place. Also, this book is mostly talking about things that took place 40 to 60 years ago, and since many of the people in Israel today weren't even alive back then it seems like going anti-Israel wouldn't accomplish anything but punishing children for what their parents/grandparents did.

I believe I'm still on the G chapter, though I may have finished it before conking out last night. I don't remember much of it because I was really tired so I'll have to read through it again before commenting further. I can say I had one strange thought while reading this book, though -- does anyone know what would happen if the Temple Mount simply wasn't there anymore? Would it fix anything if neither the Dome nor the Temple had the one perfect, necessary spot to exist anymore?