Haanegraff vs. LaHaye

Discussion in 'Books / Publications Forum' started by dan e., Jul 27, 2007.

  1. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm getting ready to read Hank Haanegraff's new book, "The Apocalypse Code", which is a shot at Tim LaHaye's views on the end times. I know the basis of this thread revolves around that book, but wanted it in this area because I think it'll get more looks.

    From what I've understood on Haanegraff's defense of his views, it seems rather convincing. It seems his views hinge on the view that Revelation was written in the late 60's rather than 90s. I was just curious on some thoughts on his book, supporters or others that disagree. I'm sorting all this out and really was intrigued by his summary of the book on his radio show. A lot of things he says sound really convincing. I'm anxious to get into it and really compare it with Scripture.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. ShotGunWillie

    ShotGunWillie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    773
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have never read a book by Hank, but I have a feeling if he is taken a big SHOT at Tim I will not agree with much of what Hank beliefs, depending on what shots he took at Tim.

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

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bought the book on sale. But haven't gotten to it as yet. Don't know if I will, but if this thread gets interesting then maybe I will.
     
  4. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    From his summaries on his show, yes, he does believe that much of the prophecies in Revelation, and the Olivet discourse took place before, or on 70AD. He is not a full preterist, arguing that Jesus has already returned. He definitely believes in a future, bodily return of Jesus.

    His shot at LaHaye is that he takes the prophetic literature literally, interpreting it in a "wooden literal sense". His "code" that he says is needed to interpret Revelation is an understanding of the OT. He said that the late date of Revelation is based upon an obscure statement by Irenaus, I think? Anyone know more about that, or disagree with him on that? One of his main arguments for an early date is that the destruction of the temple is not mentioned. If an early date could be proven, then I can see how some of the futuristic interpretations make more sense as being fulfilled in 70AD.
     
  5. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me clarify that I'm not claiming to have a solid position on any of it...but am learning. He's been promoting his book like crazy in recent months, and I usually listen to his show. It has made me much more interested.

    One funny side note is that they are both published by Thomas Nelson.
     
  6. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    dan,

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

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

    skypair
     
  7. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard him say yesterday on his show that being a literalist doesn't mean interpreting everything literally in every context and situation. I happen to agree here...he actually does call himself a literalist, but defines that as interpreting the Bible what it was literally intended to mean. Genre, historical context, etc. are things to be taken into account (which I don't think anyone would disagree with) even when interpreting literally. I need to just fork out the money and read it...I'm definitely intrigued and have always been suspect of a lot of the "Left Behind" type stuff. I will need to be sure and balance what I read with Scripture and opposing views as well.
     
  8. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have had the honor of seeing both LaHaye and Hanegraaff speak in person. LaHaye twice, Hanegraaff once. Hanegraaff spoke on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is a fine public speaker. He has put a lot of Scripture to memory and can quote large chunks of Scripture off the top of his head. Hanegraaff is also a very good author. LaHaye is not a good public speaker at all. His sermons are somewhat chunky (bit by bit) with little flow. His non-fictional writings are good but could be better. His fictional works, well, stink.

    Having said that my position is pre-tribulational, pre-millennial, dispensational. I do not agree with Hanegraaff's position. I am sure that Hanegraaff's book, and any speech or lesson he has given on this topic, is very convincing. What troubles me is that just a few years ago, I would say in the late 90s, Hanegraaff said he had not studied Revelation in any detail. His position seems to have developed rather quickly. Now that does not mean, nor does it imply, that Hanegraaff is wrong. It is just an observation that does cause me some concern.
     
    #8 Martin, Jul 27, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2007
  9. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was converted under Tim's ministry in 1959 and he was my pastor for years. IMO, he then was a very good preacher, but not a good exegete or theologian. He had then only a BA from BJU.

    Never read any of Tim's novels.

    Never read Hank.

    I lean toward post trib pre mill but am undecided .

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

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I especially love Moo.
     
  11. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. A pastor friend is who told me about the book, so I went and got it on sale.

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

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Almost all the late date advocates directly or indirectly base thiet view on one statement by Irenaus. Here is the statement:

    Quote from Revelation: “Four Views"

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

    Here are some problems with the above passage:

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

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

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

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

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


    Here is what FW Farrar says:

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

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

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

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

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    **Moderator note**

    This thread was intentionally moved to the Books and Publications forum

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

    Bro. David
    Moderator

    Carry on from here
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    When I first saw the full preterist position expounded here by Grasshopper and a couple of others years ago, I too rejectex it as to "allegorical", especially regarding Christ's "appearance" and the rapture/resurrection. But then when I saw Ed Stevens' theory of an AD70 rapture, and Dave Green's citing of Josephus on a visible appearance of Christ, the whole idea then became more probable, and even likely. A lot of scriptural statements make more sense when viewd from that perspective, and we have contextualized them all to us, thousands of years later, raining endless paradoxes, like the neverending OSAS debate. (Preterism would solve that by saying since the NT readers wefre still partly under the OC as long as the Temple stood, that's why they were told they had to persevere to be saved, and the "race" they were in did lok like it was toward something in their lifetime).

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

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is amazing to me to hear the man who is SO right on the other issues come out so contrary on this one issue. I started reading one of his books on the drift of Christianity into unorthodoxy and occult -- it was a bit ponderous to me.

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

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

    skypair
     
  16. dan e.

    dan e.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for all the thoughts and book recommendations...I'll pick those up.
     
  17. 4boys4joys

    4boys4joys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Question

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

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is the people who had not rejected the gospel nor accepted after the rapture can still be saved after the rapture occurs. Those already rejected it will not receive it apparently after the rapture and entrance of the Anti-Christ.

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

    The "Wicked" whom the Lord will consume with spirit of His mouth and the brightness of His 'coming', is a direct reference to the Anti-Christ. But the Anti-Christ will decieve with all manner of deception/lies, false signs and lieing wonders just as Satan himself. (which according to Revelation Satan gives the AC his power and authority- so is it any wonder the AC will be after or in like manner of Satans own works)
    But here is the part you that establishes your quote in verse 11 and that is verse 10 in the later half. BECAUSE 'they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved". They believe the lie because they rejected the truth that could have saved them.
    Then it states they believed the lie, and it was for THIS cause (rejection of the truth) that God will send them a strong delusion that they will beleive (continue believing) the lie that they might be damned who did not believe the truth.
     
    #18 Allan, Aug 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2007
  19. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am about half way through Hank's book. So far what he seems to be pushing the most is that one ought to take thier theology from scripture and not read their theology into scripture. I can agree with that.

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

Share This Page

Loading...