Hank Hanegraaff’s Conference on Preterism and Replacement Theology
August 8, 2007
The following is a excerpt of an interesting article from Moriel Ministries.
Hank Hanegraaff is often heard quoting the phrase “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things charity.” I wonder, though, where is the charity and liberty of which he speaks in his own testimony and teaching?
I have been interested in Hanegraaff and his teachings since attending one of his conferences. I knew, though he is very ambiguous when it comes to actual details in his eschatological viewpoints, it was sure to be an interesting evening. When I left the conference, I was completely convinced that Hanegraaff obviously does not practice what he teaches in regards to humility, charity, or biblical literacy.
However, I refuse to resort to the kind of demeaning rhetoric that he uses when attempting to make his point. More time was spent belittling dispensationalism at the conference and Hank’s beliefs concerning the nation of Israel than was spent asserting the validity of his own beliefs of God’s total rejection of Israel. The rants that were heard that night had little if anything to do with his proving his questionable “Exegetical Eschatology” which he teaches. His seminar was filled with juvenile name calling and misinformation of dispensational teachers and their teachings. Instead, I will focus on the wayward theology that is being propagated as truth by Hanegraaff and his staff, Replacement Theology.
You can read the complete article here.
Posted in End Times, Eschatology, Exegesis, Final Events, Hank Hanegraaff, Last Days, Moriel Ministries, Replacement Theology
content rss
December 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I have realized in my studies that this teaching of Replacement Theology does much harm to the church, because it adds to the anti-Israeli sentiment that seems to be an undercurrent in many mainstream churches today.
This method of logic would incriminate many simply by association. I think many Zionists give Christians a bad name and have done REAL hard in middle east relations but I wouldnt use extreme examples to prove a theological viewpoint is invalid. To the contrary, I do not subscribe to dispensational eschatology but I do not find myself to be the slightest aniti-semitic and have rarely seen any example of it in sincere Christians.
For instance, in Romans 11:1-2 the Bible says, I say then, God has not rejected His people has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2. God has not rejected His whom He foreknew…
When one reads these verses it is all but impossible to honestly say that Paul is not speaking of national Israel.
Are you exegetically inferring from this verse that God FORENKEW ALL of national Isreal? I would hardly think that is the case. I cannot believe ALL of Isreal was foreknown and justified by God : “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire.” John 8:44, “‘Abraham is our father’, they answered. ‘If you were Abraham’s children’, said Jesus, ‘then you would do the things Abraham did.’” John 8:39
…so if Paul was not referring to all of national Isreal but only those within Isreal who were forknown, and justified by God, then I see no problem with this verse. God did not abandon His people in Isreal.
Why are dispensationalists so adamant in claiming ethnic Jews as God’s Chosen people, when Jesus himself clearly told many Jews that they knew not the father, and that “if you believed Moses you would believe in me, for he wrote about me” (my paraphrase sorry)
June 11th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I am Jewish and still remember Protestant missionaries trying to convert my family when I was growing up. I resolved my doubts about eternal salvation and the afterlife by studying with Orthodox Jews and becoming more Torah observant.
For me to believe in J.C. as a man-god would be idolotrous, a violation of the 2nd Commandment. (Read the 10 Commandments in an English translation that is faithful to the Hebrew; you may be surprised at the big differences.)
I no longer believe in the existence of an alleged Devil called Satan. “Satan” means “temptor” or “adversary” in Hebrew. I learned from Orthodox rabbis that angels lack free will. In truth, G-d Himself causes evil to exist. He doesn’t need the help of any “god of this world.” To believe the Satan myth is to believe in a plurality of gods.
John 14:6 often has an “uber alles” connotation to it. Thank G-d that I wized up.
Wednesday, 6/11/08 common era
June 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Moshe,
Thank you for your comments. I would only say that I think you have made some errors in your interpretation of scripture. Who hasn’t right? Well we all have, but when is comes the reality of Satan and our justification/salvation being only through faith in Jesus Christ, we need to understand the truth.
Jesus is the only way and you will spend an eternity in hell with the devil and his angels if you choose to refuse Christ.
I will be praying for you as the scriptures direct me to and the love of Christ compels me to.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I would add. Jewish people are not saved through their bloodline and never have been. The Jewish “believers” of the Old Testament were and are saved the exact same way that believers are today. They are saved through the work of Jesus on the Cross. We as modern Christians and Jewish believers, look back to the fulfillment of Gods redemptive plan through Jesus. The Jewish believers of old looked forward and placed their faith in the promises or types yet to come.
In essence, they looked forward to the promise, and we look back.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:50 am
I have to agree about Hank. Even though I might agree with Hank on most issues, I would rather listen to a Dispensational, pre-Trib preacher like David Hocking who is truly charitable in the non-essentials than someone who is abusive and treats people who disagree with him like they are imbeciles.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
In support of your contention that Hank Hanegraaff resorts to ad hominem name-calling to replace logical, sound, or even biblical arguments was brought forth at a debate (which Hanegraaff lost) on preterism and post-millennial theology. Even though the post-millennial debater was a pre-tribulationist, a mid-or-post-tirublationist who is post-millennial benefited from his powerful debate. Pre-tribulationis, post-millennialist, Timothy LeHay was sitting in the front row of the debate and Hanegraaff apologized for calling him names on his radio program. This was on camera. “Order copies [of the debate] at http://www.pre-trib.org/ of this excellent debate against preterism. Dr. Mark Hitchcock won with the Sword of Scripture!
The debate between Mark Hitchcock and Hank Hanegraaff was recorded Dec. 10, 2007, at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Dallas, TX. Tim LaHaye was sitting on the front row, too, and Hank ended up apologizing on camera to him for calling him names.” Courtesy of “Lighting the Way.”
August 27th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
i would like say that this hank hanergraff is spending many lies about God rejection of israel.his belief and teachings of preterism and replacement theology is flat false doctrine. it’s amazing to me to see how the enemy is trying to bring confusion to the body of christ through these so called men of authority concerning God’s infallible Holy word. when i first started listening to this guy or the radio,something i felt just did’nt feel right in my spirit. listening to this rag on other pastor like benne hinn and kenneth copeland’s teaching or faith made me want to check his teachings out,and the things that this guy is teaching is really confusing many christians. saints run from this man ’s teachings. do your own study and research on this guy. shalom.