Hannegraaff does not deny the second coming of Christ.
I think Alan's point is that Hank Hannegraaff does believe in the second coming of Christ, but but is NOT like the Christians mentioned in the article who emphasize the political events of Israel in the last 50 years as fulfillment of prophesy, or indications of "the eye before the storm" and somehow indications that Christ will return soon.
HH does not believe in "Christian Zionism" - he does not believe 1948 Political Israel is a fulfillment of prophesy; and he does not believe that current modern Israel has the same authority to "take back the land" as they did in the OT; and he does not think it is right that many conservative Christians see political policies of Israel today are seen directly related to an application of Pre-millennialism/Pre-tribuation rapture.
HH's position is close to the "partial Preterist" position like Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry, although, he seems to deny that he agrees with everything they espouse. He calls his position, a position of "exegetical eschatology".
Brian McLaren and his desire to silence Christians is disturbing; and is really extreme in this call.
But, it seems, he and other Emergent/emerging types are reacting to what he sees as an extreme position that is common among conservative Evangelicals - if one goes by the TV Christianity - Hal Lindsay, Jack Van Impe, John Hagee (and their books also)- and books like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" Series, and the Pre-trib/end time events movies, etc.
One of the big problems, I think, as Steve has pointed out in other articles, is that any questioning of "Christian Zionism" and criticism of Israel (or use of books like Gary Burge's book); can also be used by Islamic terrorists and Hamas, etc. as somehow meaning that Israel does not have a right to exist at all; or that they should roll over and let the PLO and Hamas have all their demands - but there is too much deception and Islamic Taqiyye and other problems involved with that also.
HH going to Iran and involved in an Anti-Christian Zionism conference was very naive and dangerous; as the Muslims and Islamic governments can use and abuse his statements as meaning things that he doesn't mean.
For a more responsible dispensational response to Israel and its current status, I recommend "Israel: The Land and the People" ed. H. Wayne House. Everybody always points to Lindsay, Hagee, LaHaye, et. al. as if they represent the only voices of dispensationalism. They are easy targets due to their speculation and sensationalism. I rarely see people interact with actual dispensational scholars (i.e. Thomas, Saucy, Bock, Larsen, Vlach, et. al.).
MSC - good point - but they do criticize Pentecost, Walvoord, and Ryrie - the more responsible arm of dispensational scholars of the decades before the ones who have named, who greatly influenced the goof-balls on TV.
The goof-balls dominate the culture so much, they are the ones that needed to be addressed head on. The goof-balls got their basic information from the generation before the advent of "progressive dispensationalism", it seems to me.
Don't forget Fred Butler at his "hip and Thigh" - and the dispy's he recommends - they look very good, but I confess I have not had time to read a whole lot of it. But Butler's recommended books look like a credible scholarly compilation of responses to the credible Reformed scholars that do interact with the issues and doctrines that underline even the progressive dispy's - I would imagine that O. Palmer Robertson, Kim Riddlebarger have interacted some with the ones you name, though I have not studied them that deeply to give you examples off the top of my head.
An excellent book on the Land written from a Dispensational/Pre-Trib/pre-mil scholar is - Stanley Ellisen, Who Owns the Land?
I thought that was the best treatment that I have read, that avoids all the goofiness and date suggesting, etc.
McLaren and big-name preachers like Warren and Joel Osteen sure are self-aggrandizing. They barely register a blip on my radar, though. Maybe that's because I'm in an ordinary, healthy, community Anglican parish with expository preaching and an ancient liturgy that is non-entertainment oriented.
Perhaps if "emergents" like McLaren and his friends in publishing want the attention of serious Christians, they should stop pumping out fluff and study their Bibles and the Church Fathers instead of ignoring the Great Tradition.
"First point, the Kingdom of Christ follows the final form of the final kingdom of the nations. Did you get that? The Kingdom of Christ will follow the final form...of the final kingdom of the nations. That is the ten-nation confederacy revival of the Roman Empire. People, we're right on the threshold of that today. Today. This Naval officer said they believe Russia, he said, "Will attack Israel in April." He said, "I could be wrong, but they will, if not in April, soon after." That is a shocking truth, incredible to conceive that they are that close to that kind of activity. The Kingdom of Christ follows the final form of the final kingdom of the nations."
Even the really good and responsible Dispensationists sometimes go overboard in their date suggesting about the current Middle East events. I am glad he said, "I could be wrong" but many people don't hear that part and take the other part and run with it.
Thanks for sharing our article from our site at Stand Up For The Truth. Sounds like there's much work to be done yet on waking up the sleeping Church. :-)
So Hanegraaff is denying the second coming? He wasn't mentioned in the article.
ReplyDeleteHannegraaff does not deny the second coming of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI think Alan's point is that Hank Hannegraaff does believe in the second coming of Christ, but but is NOT like the Christians mentioned in the article who emphasize the political events of Israel in the last 50 years as fulfillment of prophesy, or indications of "the eye before the storm" and somehow indications that Christ will return soon.
HH does not believe in "Christian Zionism" - he does not believe 1948 Political Israel is a fulfillment of prophesy; and he does not believe that current modern Israel has the same authority to "take back the land" as they did in the OT; and he does not think it is right that many conservative Christians see political policies of Israel today are seen directly related to an application of Pre-millennialism/Pre-tribuation rapture.
HH's position is close to the "partial Preterist" position like Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry, although, he seems to deny that he agrees with everything they espouse. He calls his position, a position of "exegetical eschatology".
Brian McLaren and his desire to silence Christians is disturbing; and is really extreme in this call.
ReplyDeleteBut, it seems, he and other Emergent/emerging types are reacting to what he sees as an extreme position that is common among conservative Evangelicals - if one goes by the TV Christianity - Hal Lindsay, Jack Van Impe, John Hagee (and their books also)- and books like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" Series, and the Pre-trib/end time events movies, etc.
John Piper has a better take on that issue, IMO
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/do-jews-have-a-divine-right-in-the-promised-land
One of the big problems, I think, as Steve has pointed out in other articles, is that any questioning of "Christian Zionism" and criticism of Israel (or use of books like Gary Burge's book); can also be used by Islamic terrorists and Hamas, etc. as somehow meaning that Israel does not have a right to exist at all; or that they should roll over and let the PLO and Hamas have all their demands - but there is too much deception and Islamic Taqiyye and other problems involved with that also.
HH going to Iran and involved in an Anti-Christian Zionism conference was very naive and dangerous; as the Muslims and Islamic governments can use and abuse his statements as meaning things that he doesn't mean.
For a more responsible dispensational response to Israel and its current status, I recommend "Israel: The Land and the People" ed. H. Wayne House. Everybody always points to Lindsay, Hagee, LaHaye, et. al. as if they represent the only voices of dispensationalism. They are easy targets due to their speculation and sensationalism. I rarely see people interact with actual dispensational scholars (i.e. Thomas, Saucy, Bock, Larsen, Vlach, et. al.).
ReplyDeleteMSC
Delete"I rarely see people interact with actual dispensational scholars (i.e. Thomas, Saucy, Bock, Larsen, Vlach, et. al.)."
I guess that makes me the exception!
MSC - good point - but they do criticize Pentecost, Walvoord, and Ryrie - the more responsible arm of dispensational scholars of the decades before the ones who have named, who greatly influenced the goof-balls on TV.
ReplyDeleteThe goof-balls dominate the culture so much, they are the ones that needed to be addressed head on. The goof-balls got their basic information from the generation before the advent of "progressive dispensationalism", it seems to me.
Don't forget Fred Butler at his "hip and Thigh" - and the dispy's he recommends - they look very good, but I confess I have not had time to read a whole lot of it. But Butler's recommended books look like a credible scholarly compilation of responses to the credible Reformed scholars that do interact with the issues and doctrines that underline even the progressive dispy's - I would imagine that O. Palmer Robertson, Kim Riddlebarger have interacted some with the ones you name, though I have not studied them that deeply to give you examples off the top of my head.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent book on the Land written from a Dispensational/Pre-Trib/pre-mil scholar is - Stanley Ellisen, Who Owns the Land?
I thought that was the best treatment that I have read, that avoids all the goofiness and date suggesting, etc.
McLaren and big-name preachers like Warren and Joel Osteen sure are self-aggrandizing. They barely register a blip on my radar, though. Maybe that's because I'm in an ordinary, healthy, community Anglican parish with expository preaching and an ancient liturgy that is non-entertainment oriented.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if "emergents" like McLaren and his friends in publishing want the attention of serious Christians, they should stop pumping out fluff and study their Bibles and the Church Fathers instead of ignoring the Great Tradition.
Even John McArthur, who I greatly respect and love and usually agree with, said things like this - this is from his sermon in Daniel 7 from 1980.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/27-16/the-coming-kingdom-of-christ-part-2
"First point, the Kingdom of Christ follows the final form of the final kingdom of the nations. Did you get that? The Kingdom of Christ will follow the final form...of the final kingdom of the nations. That is the ten-nation confederacy revival of the Roman Empire. People, we're right on the threshold of that today. Today. This Naval officer said they believe Russia, he said, "Will attack Israel in April." He said, "I could be wrong, but they will, if not in April, soon after." That is a shocking truth, incredible to conceive that they are that close to that kind of activity. The Kingdom of Christ follows the final form of the final kingdom of the nations."
Even the really good and responsible Dispensationists sometimes go overboard in their date suggesting about the current Middle East events. I am glad he said, "I could be wrong" but many people don't hear that part and take the other part and run with it.
Thanks for sharing our article from our site at Stand Up For The Truth. Sounds like there's much work to be done yet on waking up the sleeping Church. :-)
ReplyDelete