quote:

ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience

If more people would test their doctrine against scripture in the first place instead of using 'Judge not lest ye be judged' as a shield to do anything they want to, a ministry like his wouldn't be necessary....and it is necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: A_crucified_man

Isn't Hank Hanegraaff a Preterist?

I believe in Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism vs. Preterism which is what Hank proclaims in his book, "Apocalypse Code". I've read through what he believes on his website and it has stunned me that he is correct on so many aspects of Christianity but supports this perverted view of the Book of Revelation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: A_crucified_man

Isn't Hank Hanegraaff a Preterist?

I believe in Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism vs. Preterism which is what Hank proclaims in his book, "Apocalypse Code". I've read through what he believes on his website and it has stunned me that he is correct on so many aspects of Christianity but supports this perverted view of the Book of Revelation.

First of all, there is Full-Preterism and Partial Preterism. I don't know how familiar you are with Partial Preterism, but it's not that big of a deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

He is a Partial-Preterist. So no he does not adhere to the 'Left Behind' Tim LaHaye view of eschatology, but that view is new and has only been around for a few in relations to the spans of Christiantendom.

Here are a few explanations of what his end-times views are and are not - if you only read one, read the first one:

Explanation of end-times stance

Apocaplyse Code vs. Left Behind

Calling Tim LaHaye's stance racist?

Read the first one and see how that stance is what most Christians have ascribed to for centuries and how partial is indeed not heretical and is a secondary issue, not an issue for us to divide over.

My church is full of Partial-Preterists and Left Behinders..

quote:

ORIGINAL: A_crucified_man

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

He is a Partial-Preterist. So no he does not adhere to the 'Left Behind' Tim LaHaye view of eschatology, but that view is new and has only been around for a few in relations to the spans of Christiantendom.

Here are a few explanations of what his end-times views are and are not - if you only read one, read the first one:

Explanation of end-times stance

Apocaplyse Code vs. Left Behind

Calling Tim LaHaye's stance racist?

Read the first one and see how that stance is what most Christians have ascribed to for centuries and how partial is indeed not heretical and is a secondary issue, not an issue for us to divide over.

My church is full of Partial-Preterists and Left Behinders..

That letter doesn't really explain anything, to be honest, earthless. I will have to research their dispute more to have a better understanding why well-known theologist's are in disagreement with Hank's viewpoint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

You don't see it? The context and command from God to test all things in light of Scripture is found in numerous places. We hear all the time from people who fit those molds I described as saying, "we are to just love one another and be united in faith, don't cause division!!" But shouldn't we therefore, regard as divisive those people who teach things which are clearly unbiblical?

I can tell you firsthand that it is no joy to be labeled a "heresy-hunter." Yet, as the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy, we are to zealously guard the purity of the message God has entrusted to us, and for good reason (1 Timothy 1:18-19; 6:20; 2 Timothy 4:2-5).

We read in such passages as Acts chapter 20, and 2 Peter chapter 2, that false teachers will arise, bringing with them destructive heresies, distorting the truth and destroying the faith of some. Moreover, friend, it is clear that these teachers will come not only from outside the church, but also from within the body of Christ as well.

It is therefore imperative that we test all things by Scripture (1 Thessolanians 5:21).

It was in this spirit that the Bereans examined the words of the Apostle Paul, for which they were reckoned as noble in character (Acts 17:11). Indeed, not only can the Bible be used for preaching, teaching and encouragement, but it is equally valuable for correcting and rebuking (2 Timothy 4:2).

As a matter of fact, we as Christians are held accountable for proclaiming the whole will of God, warning others of false teachings. (Acts 20:26-28; Ezekiel 33:7-0; 34:1-10)

This is not merely a suggestion, it is, in fact, a divine mandate. Of course if heresies are coming from teachers within the church, we ought to try and approach them first with our concerns.

Should that fail to resolve the problem, we are told in Matthew 18 to expose their errors to the church; and if need be, divulge their names. (1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17-18; 4:14-15; 3 John 9-10).

We would, therefore, do well to heed Scripture's explicit warning to be on guard for false teachings (Romans 16:17-18; 1 Timothy 1:3-4; 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; Titus 1:9; 2:1), and to point them out to brothers and sisters in Christ (2 Timothy 4:6).

As for CRI - it's the most popular of apologetic question & answer radio broadcasts, but there are some others which are a lot more meatier. The Bible Answer Man is more for those in the beginning levels of apologetics, it serves its purpose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience

If more people would test their doctrine against scripture in the first place instead of using 'Judge not lest ye be judged' as a shield to do anything they want to, a ministry like his wouldn't be necessary....and it is necessary.

quote:

He is a Partial-Preterist. So no he does not adhere to the 'Left Behind' Tim LaHaye view of eschatology, but that view is new and has only been around for a few in relations to the spans of Christiantendom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

quote:

He is a Partial-Preterist. So no he does not adhere to the 'Left Behind' Tim LaHaye view of eschatology, but that view is new and has only been around for a few in relations to the spans of Christiantendom.

earthless,
I haven’t read the “Apocalypse Code” but I think Hank is a full blown, fully committed, full preterist. Recently he talked about his views on two consecutive episodes of his radio show. I have the worst memory, but I am certain I remember him saying that the meaning of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 24, as well as the meaning of the book of Revelation is unambiguous and beyond misunderstanding. He took the full preterist interpretation on virtually every detail of both sections of Scripture…even taking the position that the number of the beast (666) represents the name “Nero” (the 666=Nero theory is accepted by some, but it is such a stretch that most serious scholars reject it). He went so far as to suggest that nothing Jesus said in Matthew 24 had to do with end times events. In spite of my bad memory, I remember these episodes because he angered me. So much of what Hank said required ignoring the clear meaning of many passages, yet Hank was certain that his interpretation was absolutely correct, and he implied that any other interpretation was either foolishness or the result of bad or dishonest hermeneutics.

I believe we need to be a bit less dogmatic about many of the details of end times events - which IMHO makes Hank’s certainty a demonstration of bad hermeneutics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica


One must teach the Good News that those who endure those trials will be rewarded with priesthood and they will Reign with Christ for one thousand years in the Millennium.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica


One must teach the Good News that those who endure those trials will be rewarded with priesthood and they will Reign with Christ for one thousand years in the Millennium.

OH BOY... *can of worms* alert.

The irony...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

quote:

He is a Partial-Preterist. So no he does not adhere to the 'Left Behind' Tim LaHaye view of eschatology, but that view is new and has only been around for a few in relations to the spans of Christiantendom.

earthless,
I haven’t read the “Apocalypse Code” but I think Hank is a full blown, fully committed, full preterist. Recently he talked about his views on two consecutive episodes of his radio show. I have the worst memory, but I am certain I remember him saying that the meaning of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 24, as well as the meaning of the book of Revelation is unambiguous and beyond misunderstanding. He took the full preterist interpretation on virtually every detail of both sections of Scripture…even taking the position that the number of the beast (666) represents the name “Nero” (the 666=Nero theory is accepted by some, but it is such a stretch that most serious scholars reject it). He went so far as to suggest that nothing Jesus said in Matthew 24 had to do with end times events. In spite of my bad memory, I remember these episodes because he angered me. So much of what Hank said required ignoring the clear meaning of many passages, yet Hank was certain that his interpretation was absolutely correct, and he implied that any other interpretation was either foolishness or the result of bad or dishonest hermeneutics.

I believe we need to be a bit less dogmatic about many of the details of end times events - which IMHO makes Hank’s certainty a demonstration of bad hermeneutics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: A_crucified_man

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: A_crucified_man

Isn't Hank Hanegraaff a Preterist?

I believe in Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism vs. Preterism which is what Hank proclaims in his book, "Apocalypse Code". I've read through what he believes on his website and it has stunned me that he is correct on so many aspects of Christianity but supports this perverted view of the Book of Revelation.

First of all, there is Full-Preterism and Partial Preterism. I don't know how familiar you are with Partial Preterism, but it's not that big of a deal.

Sorry, but either one is false and therefore, a big deal.

quote:

Read the first one and see how that stance is what most Christians have ascribed to for centuries and how partial is indeed not heretical and is a secondary issue, not an issue for us to divide over.

My church is full of Partial-Preterists and Left Behinders..

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica

Greetings, we are mostly to test our Doctrinal beliefs against The Scripture rather than Judging other people because Paul said for at whatever point you judge others you are condemning yourself for you do those very things. One does not want to act like the cults do in excluding everyone that does not have the same Church; yet we must adhere closely to Doctrine as Paul admonished Timothy to do.

I, for one, am glad that someone has taken the task of expounding upon the Sound apologetical precepts that are necessary for one to believe in order to inherit eternal life. For the Scriptures are able to make one wise for salvation in Christ Jesus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: themoodyexperience

If more people would test their doctrine against scripture in the first place instead of using 'Judge not lest ye be judged' as a shield to do anything they want to, a ministry like his wouldn't be necessary....and it is necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

earthless,
I haven’t read the “Apocalypse Code” but I think Hank is a full blown, fully committed, full preterist. Recently he talked about his views on two consecutive episodes of his radio show. I have the worst memory, but I am certain I remember him saying that the meaning of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 24, as well as the meaning of the book of Revelation is unambiguous and beyond misunderstanding. He took the full preterist interpretation on virtually every detail of...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

earthless,
I haven’t read the “Apocalypse Code” but I think Hank is a full blown, fully committed, full preterist. Recently he talked about his views on two consecutive episodes of his radio show. I have the worst memory, but I am certain I remember him saying that the meaning of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 24, as well as the meaning of the book of Revelation is unambiguous and beyond misunderstanding. He took the full preterist interpretation on virtually every detail of...

I have read 1/3 of RC Sproul's book on the subject. RC Sproul (and others) say that while Haanegraf declines to label himself as a Partial Preterist, the eschatological position he describes is consistent with Partial Preterism.

Further, since Full Preterism is actually considered unorthodox and since Haanegraf is orthodox in pretty much all other doctrinal areas, it is highly unlikely that he is Full Preterist. No one, and I mean no one (didn't I say no one?) has ever described him as a Full Preterist.

I'd like to research the area further, but Full Preteristism (as I understand it) is at odds with orthodoxy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead


grahamcracker,
maybe I'm misunderstanding the definition of full preterism. As I understand it, full preterism is the belief that the prophecies of Revelation and Matthew 24 have nothing to do with end time events; rather they refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Partial Preterism teaches that the prophecies refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem, but a few also refer to end time events.

If my understanding of the terms is correct, then it doesn't matter what Sproul says, because Hank definitely was teaching a full preterist interpretation (Oh Lord, I pray my memory is serving me well on this subject!). I really respect Sproul (and I have respect for Hank as well), but Hank has changed some of his doctrinal positions over the years, so it isn't unreasonable to think that he might have been influenced by some "scholarship" on the subject. On the programs I referred to Hank had a guest whose opinions Hank really agreed with. In fact they went back and forth in their description of what the prophecies meant. This man could have been the "scholar" who influenced him.

One last point, I'm not sure how full preterism (as I understand it) affects someone's orthodoxy.