Eschatology Erupts. LaHaye vs. Hanegraaff. Premillennialism vs. Preterism.

What's that sour taste? - Hehe. I have to say I laughed half way through reading the article about which I'm now posting about. Not because the writer said something funny but because I just have to shake my head at some Christians.

The Christians in this case being Tim LaHaye of "Left Behind" fame and Hank Hanegraaff, soon to be of "The Last Disciple" fame (maybe).

These two brothers have completely opposite views in the realm of Eschatology. Eschatology, for those that aren't familiar with the term, is basically the study of End Times; ie. Revelation, Armageddon, the Second Coming of Christ.

What caught my eye was that The Dallas Morning News reporter Ira J. Hadnot did a story about the disgruntlement of Tim LaHaye with the publisher, Tyndale House, of his fictional series "Left Behind."

His disgruntlement was because Tyndale is going to publish a fictional series that takes the opposite of his view of the End Times known as Premillennialism. Basically (very basic so don't hammer me unless I'm way off base) Premillennialists believe that the Church will be raptured before the Great Tribulation and will therefore not have to suffer like all the unbelievers. Christ will later come back and destroy those sinners left behind after the seven years of persecution and establish His 1,000 year kingdom.

Well the opposite fictional series is by Hank Hanegraaff and apparently takes the Full Preterist view that all of Revelation, including the Rapture and Resurrection, took place around 70 AD.

Hadnot writes:

But the Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the "Left Behind" books, called the decision by his publisher "stunning and disappointing" and said he felt betrayed.

"They are going to take the money we made for them and promote this nonsense," he said.

It was LaHaye's statement that made me shake my head. One, I thought to myself, 'Hey, it's Tyndale's decision, wrong or not.' It's the same thought I had when I didn't win the WORLDview Fiction Contest, which isn't to say that I wasn't depressed for a day.

Of course the other thing that occurs to me is that LaHaye feels that because his book series was and is the money making machine, that Tyndale then needs to run any new authors and their ideas past him first. Sort of arrogant, but hey, he's human too.

But, I think the thing that kind of bothers me most, and it may be that the reporter selectively quoted so I won't hold it against LaHaye, is that he doesn't honor God for bringing the increase in the statement that "we made" the money for them.

Like I said, maybe the quote is selective. Maybe not. He's just as fleshy as I am and so is prone to spitting out stupid unrighteous things too.

That's okay and I can forgive him for it.

On why Tyndale is publishing the opposing series, Ron Beers, senior VP, said:

"As a Christian publisher, we want to represent a diversity of viewpoints," said Beers. "There is nothing strange about Tyndale selling both views. There are a variety of perspectives on the end times. Some people had a problem with the theology in the `Left Behind' books."

Well, what's wrong with this?

One thing. One big thing really, and it really bothers your's truly.

It's FICTION!

Not diverse viewpoints dissecting Eschatoloy.

Certainly Eschatolgy is important to both, but good grief if LaHaye, Hanegraaff, and Beers want to teach people about the diverse views of Premillennialism and Preterism than by all means publish non-fiction books on the subjects.

But if you're going to do fiction, tell a story about characters and leave it at that. Fiction works when fiction doesn't pass it's self off as gospel.

So tell me, what are you Preterist, Premillennialist (Pretrib), MidTrib, PostTrib (Postmillennialist), or other?

I'll tell you what I am. I believe the Church (ie. Christians) will go through the full tribulation and that the Rapture, Resurrection, and Judgement will all take place on the last day.

But as my father likes to say, and I paraphrase, "It doesn't matter if you're a PreTrib, MidTrib, or Post Trib. What matters is if you've given your life to Christ. No matter what comes, He is strong enough to get you through it. I'm certainly not going to argue with Christ when He comes back for me if I think His coming was at the wrong time."

Here's a couple Eschatology articles on another site if you want to read more about Preterism and the question of the Church and the Tribulation:

A short introduction to Preterism. What the bible teaches.

Will the Church go through the great tribulation. What the bible teaches.

Update: 2004.11.24.

Hank Hanegraaff was apparently misquoted in this news article. At least that is the report from The Olivet Discourse which reports Hank as saying:

"First of all, this is not a man, it's a woman. And her name is Ira. And she wrote this article. And after she had written the article I saw the quote that had been attributed to me. So I gave her a call and she's no longer with the Dallas Morning News. What she explained to me is. The editor that took the story over after she had initially written it, but not finished it, confabulated some of my statements. And I clarified with her, "Have I ever said anything like that to you?" She said "No."

Comments

[Stacy]

Amen! Hal, I have to say that these two men drive me crazy. In fact, most Christian celebrities drive me crazy because they think they know everything just because people listen to them. I've never been a fan of LaHaye, in fact, I even won The Glorious Appearing and got to page 3 or something, and then gave the dumb thing away.

I used to listen to Hank, but his arrogance got to me and so now for about 7 years I haven't listened to him either.

Maybe someday they will both wake up and realize it isn't about their stupid opinions, it's about Jesus! Great post!

[MagooGirl]

Your dad sounds like my mom. When I was young I used to experience nightmares over all the end-times discussions. But my mom gently reminded me one day that, "Honey, it doesn't matter when Christ returns. Just make sure your ready any time." For some reason, that took all the fear out of it. I guess the old, "Keep It Simple Stupid" (KISS) approach comes in handy!

[Larry]

MagooGirl, your mom was very wise in telling you that because it's so true. Personally, I haven't really studied it all that much because of time but, like your mom, I have tried to focus on what we are instructed to do until he returns: tell others and be prepared.

[Rob]

Are you a pre-, post-, or mid-tribulationist, meaning do you believe the rapture will occur before the Tribulation, after the Tribulation, or in the middle of the Tribulation? I personally am a pan-tribulationist. I believe everything will PAN out in the end. (Sorry, I know the humor is poor, but I couldn't resist.)

[Willard Lavonne]

Great posts!

Must respectfully disagree about the 'fiction' comment, however. Fiction is a powerful vehicle to present points of view. Already, there are dozens and dozens of non-fiction books available on end times interpretations -- but many people chose not to read non-fiction, so I would argue that it's not a bad thing to supplement the non-fiction with novels to cover all the bases.

Also agree with the viewpoint that in one way, it doesn't matter what view prevails, as it doesn't matter near as much when Christ returns compared to the fact that He will return.

However, I think there is a danger in uncritical acceptance of those views. LaHaye, for example, verges on heresy in his novel The Indwelling, because his interpretation of Revelation 13 is so literal that his fictional character Nicolae Carpathia is raised from the dead.

Wow!

In fiction, or in non-fiction theology, it's scary to present the belief that Satan, like God, is able to resurrect someone from death. Not only does this negate the uniqueness of the resurrection of Christ, it opens the door to the possibility that Satan faked the resurrection of Christ to fool us, and at the very least, by attributing to Satan creative powers equal to God's, it promotes a dualistic world view. (I found this this in the afterword of The Last Disciple.)

That's why fiction is such a powerful vehicle. Millions of readers have accepted LaHay's viewpoint, without, perhaps, thinking through the implications of all of it. I was glad I gave The Last Disciple a chance -- I was able to see Revelation through the eyes of the first-generation of Christians who so badly needed its comfort, and it gave me a new understanding of this mysterious letter.

[Rey]

Great post indeed! Personally I'm a pre-mil guy but Fiction is what it is. Let the stories come! Heh heh.

[Steven]

Enjoying reading the comments. I have been in ministry for 25 years. I 'cut my teeth' on the literal 'LaHaye' type pre-millenial dispensationalism. After seminary my foundation began to crack - and in 1982 a friend gave me Robert Gundry's book, "The Church and the Tribulation" which totally threw me for a loop. He went to all my rapture 'proof texts' and showed contextual, historical and logical perspectives completely opposite to my view.
Like another blogger, I haven't been a great fan of Hank - had a big radio run-in with him years ago when I was doing some Christian radio also - but kudos to him for taking LaHaye on!

I'm probably not a pure preterist - somewhere in there I have a little 'historical premillenial' in me, and frankly, some of the evangelical 'a-mill" guys, like R.C. Sproul, etc., make sense also!

An EXCELLENT a-mill perspective that would dovetail with "The Last Disciple," is William Hendrikson's "More Than Conquerors"

[Jeremy Pierce]

I'm sorry to say that you are indeed way off-base. It's dispensationalists who believe in a pre-trib rapture. Classic premillenialism is post-trib. An unqualified use of the term 'premillenialism' usually refers to the classic view.

As for Satan and resurrection, there is a suggestion of Satan mimicking the resurrection in the book of Revelation. LaHaye didn't just make that up. It's part of the unholy trinity's mimicking of the real Trinity.

I don't see anything in the article that indictes the book is based on the heresy of full preterism, according to which there's no future return of Christ and no reesrrection. I don't expect it to be much better than the books by Jerry Jenkins that LaHaye pretended to write, but it can't be worse.

[Willard Lavonne]

>As for Satan and resurrection, there is a suggestion of Satan mimicking the resurrection in the book of Revelation. LaHaye didn't just make that up. It's part of the unholy trinity's mimicking of the real Trinity<

the key word in the above paragraph is 'mimicking'. Yes, in Revelation 13 the 'mimicking' occurs. Layahe, however, in his quest for literalism, goes one step farther. There is no 'mimicking' in The Indwelling.

This is a crucial point. If Lahaye's insistence on literalism in the interpretatino of scripture gives Satan the power to raise the dead, not 'mimick', then there can only be one of three conclusions:

1) Satan has dualist powers with God, and can negate the uniqueness of the resurrection of Christ

or 2) the scriptures are wrong

or 3) the model of interpreation is wrong.

I know what I pick. And if the model of interpretation is wrong there, I certainly suspect it elsewhere.

[Hal]

Jeremy,

Where do you find the classic definition of pre-mill? Everything I've read lumps it together with the pre-trib crowd - where the saints are raptured before the tribulation to return to earth for the 1,000 year reign.

Thanks,
Hal

[Mike Schroeder]

I agree with you that salvation is the primary thing, i.e., has one ceased from his works, and trusted Christ and his atoning work on the cross to save him. But to say that one's eschatological position is not important (to assume the "pan-trib" position), is wrong. 1 Timothy 2:3,4 says that, "...God our Saviour...will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." The primary thing, indeed, is to know that "there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all..."(verses 5,6), but that is only the foundation upon which the spiritual house is to be built. What one (who is saved) builds upon this foundation will determine his reward (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Hannagraf and LaHaye are both wrong, not because they are arguing over something of little or no consequence, but because they both see the church, the body of Christ as a New Testament church. Everybody is a dispensationalist to some degree. Even a pure Preterist (or a partial like Hannagraf) divides the Bible into Old and New Covenants. 2 Timothy 2:15 confirms that "the word of truth" is to be divided, begging the question: "how so?" Paul said in that very same chapter, verse 7: "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things." If we do this, we find that he also said: "If you have heard of the dispensation of the Grace of God...the mystery...which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of man, as it is now revealed..." (Eph. 3:2,5) This dispensation he reveals in this passage created a "new man," into which believers are being placed, that eliminates religious ordinances, and any distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14,15,16) This is where we are now (and have been for going on 2000 years), not the New Testament. The New Covenant is with Israel, not the body of Christ. This is plainly stated in passages like Jer. 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-13. If you don't see the grace dispensation, then there is no way you will ever see what Paul referred to as: "this grace.." that he preached among the Gentiles: "...the unsearchable riches of Christ." (Eph. 3:8)

[Tom Spangler]

I never heard of 70 AD untill I starting attending church at Word of Life in Lufkin, TX. I have been in the mainstream church since the late 70's. I was surprised to see Hank and I on the same side for a change. Thank you Pastor Simon for preaching the truth. Mat.24 Fullfilled. The truth shall set you free.

[Nathyn]

I do believe there will be one who is raised from the dead. Remember that this person will fool the Jews because of this. I believe the spirit of the Antichrist was in the world but that the main Antichrist will come in the future. Jesus told us in these times false Christ will come performing miracles that could fool the elect. (Matthew 24:24-25).

I also have reason to believe these revelations were about Roman Catholicism at it's inception. Remember the Bible says many things about the Antichrist including anyone teaching "Another Christ" is the Antichrist. The Church teaches it's priest are "Another Christ". Not to mention that the Pope is the high priest of God, but the Bible says Jesus is high priest forever.

Anti has a second definition: To stand in place of such as in the term "Anti-pope". An antipope stood in for the Pope. The antichrist would easily be seen as one who "Stands in for Christ" or a "Vicar of Christ". In Latin this title is "Vicarius Filli Dei" (which means: In place of the Son of God) which equals 666. (Don't believe me see for yourself).

During the Dark ages the Catholic Church burned Bibles and killed Christians who disagreed with heretical Church doctrine but not with the core of the scripture. Some as myself see this as "warring with the Saints". (Revelation 13:5-7).

Constantine at the Church's inception changed the day of worship from Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) to Sunday to bring Pagans (Sun worshippers) into the Church. They also altered the 10 commandments omitting "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them."

The Antichrist colors are the Roman Church's colors Purple and Scarlet.

There's way to many correlations between the Roman Church (it being in Rome number one and it's longevity) and the Antichrist for so many people to not notice. I think many would do good to look at these things before any conclusion is made.

On the face the Church says Anyone who believes in Christ will be saved but behind closed doors the doctrine of Salvation through the Church still stands even though the Bible cleary says there is no Salvation outside "the Church" it meant the body of Christ not a Church that had yet to even be formed. Clearly you can be Baptist or something else and Believe and abide in Christ therefore reaping the rewards when the time comes. Please look into this.

-Nate

[todd]

a few things that seem to support a pre trib rapture is 1. the church is not mentioned once in ch 5-19. i believe that if the church is to go through this time of testing for those who dwell upon the earth, Jesus would have at least one thing to say to the church. the people who are on the earth and give thier lives to Christ during this time are called saints, just like the old testament calls them. there is no church on the earth at this time i do believe.the 2nd point is in rev3-10. read it for yourself. thirdly is the fact that we dont know when Christ is coming back. He says that we dont know the hour or day, we are called to always be ready. this points to an idea of immenence, meaning that He could come at any moment. if He comes back at the end of the trib. we could read our bibles and see at what point during the 7 yr period we are ie: world leader appearing, him signing a covenant with Israel etc... another reason i believe in pre trib is the fact that in daniel he talks about a seven year period in which God will deal with Israel specifically. this is that 7 yr period. also the fact that we are the bride of Christ lends itself to the glorious picture we have of a jewish wedding in which the bridegroom comes back for his bride secretly. what a piture of the rapture. God has not forsaken His chosen people the Jews, He is going to deal with them in that seven yr period, and many will come to faith in the Messiah. God has not appointed his churh to wrath. these are just a few reasons why i believe that Christ will come first for His bride {church}, then return with her 7 yrs later to earth where every eye shall see Him, even those who pierced Him. I would like to hear what some of you think. i will talk about the millineum next time. hop to hear from someone. God bless you.

[Virgil Vaduva]

An earlier comment said "everyone is a dispensationalist to some degree." Sorry, that's just ridiculous. Dispensationalism is a 100+ year old theological system. For the most of Church history, Christians have NOT been dispensationalists. Preterism has been around much longer, and to say that American Christians or American theology are/is at the center of Christianity is ludicrous.

Both these authors may be wrong, but that doesn't mean we all should be lazy and not study the Word of God on our own. Spoon-fed theology has never worked, and it is not about to start working now.

[Rye]

The comment of spoonfed theology was very appropriate. The dumbing down of America doesn't stop at the public schools. LaHaye is silly, trying to stop other views from being put on the table, what's he afraid of? Paul said "Test EVERYTHING, hold on to that which is good". Presenting only one view all the time is not education but indoctrination.

[ryan]

Paul also talks about moving on from the spiritual milk into the meat of the Word. But since that takes time, people would rather not. We are called to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, and MIND, but it's only the first two that we care to work at. We came to the knowledge of Christ because we know the principles of logic tell us there is only one truth. Well, its the same with the study of eschatology (study of the time of the end, NOT the end of time). After one's new life in Christ, there is no greater influence on a Christian's perspective/world view than eschatology. It is a very important issue that is covered in every book of the N.T. except Philemon. If we are reading the same Bible, then its a big deal, it especially was to Jesus.

I was raised a premillinialist (future in fulfillment), but after many, many, many hours of study I moved into amil- and then into preterism (past in fulfillment) . In my experience, that is the progression/direction of eschatological understanding. You typically will not see preterists become Amillenialist, and you won't see Amillenialists become futurist. Almost all Preterists were at one time futurist or some where in the middle, but not vice versa. The information is more than available, the most difficult part is getting past the paradigms of one's theological bubble.

I just don't like to see our pastor's misleading the flock on these issues. The Bible does not teach an impending rapture, but rather that it is appointed man once to die, and after that the judgement" (Heb.9) When we die we will be caught up to be with the Lord forever, and that is our hope, just like the Christians for the last 2000 years.

I am a Christian first, and the fruit of the Spirit is priority, but the PANmil view is simply a Christian who is uneducated and unmotivated toward the sovereign, fulfilling, and complete plan of God. Let's desire Everything that God has given to us for our understanding.

Needless to say, I'm all for Hanagraaff's book.

[post tribber]

im a post tribber as you- but i do think it does matter what ones endtime belief is because Jesus did warn of a great falling away...and the greek word in that 'fall' is divorce...many people who are following Jesus will 'divorce' Him and fall away...and i wonder if alot of them will be pre-tribbers who are so set on not suffering thru the tribulation- and then when they are smacked with the reality of being in the trib they may fall away, think God didnt 'rapture' them, think God didnt love them, or God help them- think the mark they took on their hand ""isnt really the mark because im not going to be here for the mark of the beast, im going to be raptured before it"" !!! being a pre-tribber is quite scary because they are not prepared and in massive denial of even thinking that they may have to go thru it....at least being post trib we can prepare our hearts before the Lord to have to endure such a trial.