2020. 3. 3. 18:30ㆍ카테고리 없음
’sThe Apocalypse CodeByExecutive DirectorPre-Trib Research Center, Arlington,TX.(2007) 'Geisler’sargument on the second person plural does not stand up to exegeticalscrutiny. By not dealing with the above arguments, he shows that he isnot a trustworthy critic of the preterist interpretation of prophecy.' .(2007)' Itis sad that a man who has fought so hard for so long against cultsand aberrant teachings has himself succumbed to a method ofinterpreting the Bible that is not significantly different fromthose used by the cults which he so vigorously opposes.' .(2007)'Hanegraaff meekly declares of therelease of his new book: 'I think it will create a major paradigm shift inour understanding of the end times that is long overdue.' He believes itwill be away from dispensational futurism and toward his preterism/idealismscheme.' For the last fifteen years or so when I have heard,host of the Bible Answer Man radio program, field questions oneschatology (end times prophecy) it was very clear that he has been againstthe futurist perspective from the get-go. Hanegraaff has told his audiencefor years that he was studying the field of eschatology and would announcehis views in a book one day.
Hanegraaff's book has now been released,entitled The Apocalypse Codeand has confirmed his rhetoric and tone heard for the last fifteen years onthe radio as Hanegraaff has been treating dispensationalism as if it were acult. Yes, Hanegraaff has been 'culting' dispensationalism! Even thoughHanegraaff always insisted that he was open to and had not adopted aspecific view of eschatology, it has always been equally clear to anyone whois schooled in the various views that he had all along rejecteddispensationalism and embraced his own version of a preterist/idealistscheme. Yet, he has never admitted this; and even after the release of hisbook still refuses to classify his own conclusions in spite of the fact thathe assigns labels to virtually everyone else.Some Factual ErrorsAs I first started reading the book, I noticed a numberof factual errors. Let me chronicle just a couple of them.
Hanegraaff saysTim LaHaye is 'Unlike early dispensationalists, who believed that the Jewswould be regathered in Palestine because of belief in their Redeemer.' Hanegraaff gives no documentation for this statement, which is factually inerror. Darby (the earliest of dispensationalists) believedthat the Jews would return to their land in unbelief. He says, 'At the endof the age the same fact will be reproduced: the Jews-returned to their ownland, though without being converted-will find themselves in connection withthe fourth beast.' HistorianDavid Rausch in his Ph.D. Dissertation entitled: Zionism Within EarlyAmerican Fundamentalism 1878-1918, says, 'The Proto-Fundamentalistbelieved that the Jewish people would return to Palestine, the 'PromisedLand,' without converting enmasse to Christianity.'
More examples could be given, but it is clear that most dispensationalistshave always agreed with LaHaye on this matter.Another error in fact by Hanegraaff is his statement thatAuthor James Balfour 'was raised on a steady diet of dispensationalism.' Lord Balfour was foreign secretary when the British government issues astatement in 1917 supporting the reestablishment of a Jewish state in Israelcalled the Balfour Declaration. Balfour was a Zionist, but his views werenot based upon eschatology, let alone dispensationalism. His sister andbiographer said the following:Balfour's interest in the Jews and their history waslifelong.
It originated in the Old Testament training of his mother, and inhis Scottish upbringing. As he grew up, his intellectual admiration andsympathy for certain aspects of Jewish philosophy and culture grew also, andthe problem of the Jews in the modern world seemed to him of immenseimportance. He always talked eagerly on this, and I remember in childhoodimbibing from him the idea that Christian religion and civilization owes toJudaism an immeasurable debt, shamefully ill repaid.Historian Barbara Tuckman tells us that Balfour was 'notardent but a skeptic, not a religious enthusiast but a philosophicalpessimist,. That Christian religion and civilization owes to Judaism animmeasurable debt, shamefully ill repaid.'
Hardly one influenced by dispensationalism as Hanegraaff would have hisreaders believe. In fact, it is probably true that none of the ChristianZionists of the early twentieth century in Britain were influenced at all bydispensationalism. Most of the Christian Zionists in Britain at this timewere usually members of the Church of England.Humble HankHumble Hank Hanegraaff ridicules Hal Lindsey's 1997 book,Apocalypse Code as onewho claimed to understand the book of Revelation. 'Until the presentgeneration,' declares Hanegraaff of Lindsey, 'the encrypted message of theApocalypse had remained unrealized' until Lindsey cracked the code.Now Hanegraaff meekly declares of the release of his new book: 'I think itwill create a major paradigm shift in our understanding of the end timesthat is long overdue.'
Hebelieves it will be away from dispensational futurism and toward hispreterism/idealism scheme.Hanegraaff contends that his book is about 'ExegeticalEschatology to underscore that above all else I am deeply committed to aproper method of biblical interpretation rather than to anyparticular model of eschatology.' If that is his goal then he has fallen far short of the mark! Hanegraaff'sproposed interpretative approaches, if implemented, would send the churchback to the Dark Ages hermeneutically. He may want to produce only a methodof interpretation, but the moment anyone applies a method it produces anoutcome or model of eschatology. Further, the book of Revelation is notwritten in code (where does Revelation say that?), thus, no need to breakthe code as Hanegraaff contends.The great majority of the book is a rant againstHanegraaff's distorted view of dispensationalism in general and Tim LaHayein particular. There is precious little actual exegesis, if any at all, tosupport his preterist/idealist eschatology, however, there are greatquantities of some of the most vicious tirades against LaHaye and many otherBible prophecy teachers that I have ever read in print.Hanegraaff appears rather proud to tell readers that theprinciples of his methodology is 'called Exegetical Eschatology or e 2,'as if no one before he came along had ever produced a view of eschatologyfrom proper exegesis. Interestingly, for someone who claims such a deepcommitment 'to a proper method of biblical interpretation'it is stunning to realize that Hanegraaff's 'method' is stated asprinciples, rather than an actual method like the historical-grammatical.'
Breaking The Apocalypse Code Pdf Download
I have organized the principles that are foundational toe 2 around the acronym LIGHTS,'says Hanegraaff. The letters of the acronym LIGHTS stands for the followingprinciples: L refers to the literal principle, I represents the illuminationprinciple, G stands for the grammatical principle, H for the historicalprinciple, T means the typology principle, and S is for the principle ofscriptural synergy. Onlyhalf of Hanegraaff's principles can even be classified as interpretativemethods, the other three are best classified as theological beliefs.Illumination is a work of the Holy Spirit on the believerthat enables him to see or understand God's Word.
Breaking The Apocalypse Code
An unbeliever is blindedto the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14), however, a believer is in a state inwhich he is able to see and understand God's truth (1 Cor. Thistheological truth is not an interpretative method. Typology is not a methodfor exegeting Scripture, instead, as Paul says, some Old Testament eventswere types, patterns, illustrations, or examples to help us live theChristian life (1 Cor.
Hanegraaff defines his principle ofscriptural synergy as a belief 'that the whole of Scripture is greater thanthe sum of its individual passages. That individual Bible passages maynever be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with the whole ofScripture.' Traditionallythis is called the analogy of faith, that Scripture interprets Scripture.This also is a theological outcome and not a method. This principle alsopresupposes that one already properly understands the meaning of all of theother passages that are supposed to shed light upon the one in dispute.
Suchis not the case.Tim LaHaye Racist and Blasphemer?Hanegraaff's new book anoints Tim LaHaye as the head ofthis new cult, replacing Hal Lindsey the former whipping boy, and is theprime target in his sub-Christian attack on LaHaye and other Bible prophecyadvocates. Strangely, Hanegraaff is known for often quoting the famousmaxim: 'In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things,charity.' So where is theliberty and charity in practice that he advocates in theory? Charity andliberty towards those he disagrees with is totally absent in Hanegraaff'snew book.
In fact, his new book actually competes with the writings offor the most invective per paragraph and makesappear to be a fairly nice guy. It is one thing to disagree with anotherChristian (Hanegraaff and any other Christian has a right to voice theirdisagreement with other Christians), but to call his fellow brother inChrist a racist and ablasphemer because headvocates a different view of Bible prophecy goes well beyond the pale.' Furthermore,' says Hanegraaff, 'there is the very realproblem of racial discrimination.' Watch how Hanegraaff plays the race card: he takes LaHaye's commonly heldview that Israel has a future in God's plan, adds a touch of his famousmisrepresentation of another's view, and presto, LaHaye has become a racist.It would seem to me that the same Hanegraaff logic applied to God in the OldTestament would also make the Lord a racist for choosing Israel 'out of allthe peoples who are on the face of the earth' (Deut. It follows thatif you side with God on this issue then Hanegraaff would believe that youbelieve in salvation by race instead of grace. Yes, LaHaye believes that Godhas chosen Israel, but like all dispensationalists, he also believes thatIsrael will be saved in the future by the same gracious gospel that isavailable to all mankind-Jew or Gentile.Anti-Israel and Pro-PalestinianHanegraaff's blend of preterism and idealism produces aneschatology that is viciously anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.
His brand ofreplacement theology teaches that national Israel has no future since she isreplaced by the church.Just as Joshua is a type of Jesus who leads the truechildren of Israel into the eternal land of promise, so King David is a typeof the 'King of Kings and Lord or Lords' who forever rules and reigns fromthe New Jerusalem in faithfulness and in truth (Revelation 19:16; cf.19:11). In each case, the lesser is fulfilled and rendered obsolete by thegreater.As is typical within systems of replacement theology,Hanegraaff renders much of the Old Testament obsolete by what is said tohave happened in New Testament theology. He says, the 'relationship betweenthe Testaments is in essence typological.' Future prophetic promises, which usually relate to Israel, are rendered asmythical or mere types and shadows of something else, but never what theyactually say. Through alleged hermeneutical ideas, such as Hanegraaff'sso-called, 'typology principle,' he interprets future promises to Israelallegorically as fulfilled through the church. What do YOU think?Submit Your Comments For Posting HereComment Box Disabled For SecurityDate: 24 Apr 2007Time: 12:01:32Comments:The preterist system of theology is a throw back to the rabincalinterpetations of old testament prophecies that turn pediction into alegory.This system is used to deny that Jesus is the Christ.
Why then would aso-called Christian in good faith use a system that is anti-christian in itsprecepts? I challenge all to read the writings of Justin Martyr who is onlyone generation removed from the apostle John and lived after the destructionof Jerusalem in 70 AD. He is firm in His conviction of a future literalantichrist, great tribulation lasting 31/2 years and of the physical returnof Christ in the clouds with His angels. He also preaches about thedispensations of God.
All this in 150 AD. The claim that these concepts onlystarted in 1850 and forward is false. Patrick Harriswww.allseasonsministry.comDate: 04 May 2007Time: 16:16:23Comments:Tommy Ice here admits that Darby is 'the earliest of dispensationalists'. Ifhe's the earliest which is only about 150 years ago, shouldn't we as goodBible students be questioning more the whole dispensational system if it'sso new and novel and not found in church history before 150 years ago?
Isn'tit also frightening that it was all started with a dream?Date: 04 May 2007Time: 19:19:50Comments:'Hanegraaff's blend of preterism and idealism produces an eschatology that isviciously anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. His brand of replacement theologyteaches that national Israel has no future since she is replaced by the church.' AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!God BlessNateDate: 17 May 2007Time: 20:56:46Comments:I think Hank has given people the tools to look at scripture in light ofscripture. If you look at scripture,in Genesis the seed of eve will crushthe head of the serpent.Jesus is that seed.Anyone found in Christ are thepeople of God.