DEBATE: Hank Hanegraaff vs. Dr. Mark Hitchcock - Preterism vs. Futurism {Part 1}
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Mr. Hank Hanegraaff debate the date of the Book of Revelation. The debate took place on December 10, 2007 at the annual Pre-Trib Study Group meeting in Dallas, TX. Dr. Hichcock will argue for the AD 95 date. Mr. Hanegraaff will argue for the AD 65 date. While the AD 95 date does not impact the futurist interpretive approach of Dr. Hitchcock's view, Mr. Hanegraaff preterist view requires an AD 65 date or his view of Revelation is rendered impossible.
The debate last for 3 hours and 20 minutes. A special thanks to John Ankerberg and his film crew for filming the event.
Well futurists and preterists have one important thing in common... They're both saved by the blood of Jesus Christ ✝️
Hank Hanegraaff now deny that by convering to eastern heresodoxy where salvation
Mark Hitchcock clearly made his case. I really didn't understand Hank and the points he was making. Mark was much clearer, and had more evidence, in my opinion...
Exactly. Mark engaged the claim of the debate. Hanks arguments were mostly anecdotal.
I am a historicist, and I do not believe in the day-year stuff they unnecessarily do. I agree that mark made much more sense, though I do not agree with full preterism. I think the papacy is the second beast. Irenaeus said 666 was equal to "Latin man" LATINOS. But as far as far as the futurist interpretation of Daniel 9, that is just shameful. You have to bring so many false assumptions to the text.
The responses I've seen to this portion of the debate are quite odd to me since I saw something completely different. Dr. Mark Hitchcock spent his time focusing on the dating of Revelation and not much more. Hank Hanegraaff focused on things, which I felt, were indisputable. The time indicators in both Revelation and the Olivet Discourse cannot be dismissed easily, nor can the fact that the Greek word "basileus" was used in Revelation 17. Basileus means "a ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire".
I spent that majority of my life as a Dispensationalist and by the grace of God my heart was opened to the Preterist view only a year ago. When I read scripture with an open heart and an open mind the Preterist view is the most logical one to me.
db - I have read the verse by verse Preterits view of Revelation on the Internet. It's a mess.
For something that has meant to already have happened it doesn''t fit history.
It is speculative on many symbols and passages.
Not convincing at all in my humble opinion.
Just like the pre-tribulation rapture - unconvincing.
Nope. Basileus is a general greek word for king and overarching ruler. Hebrews 7:1 uses that Greek word for Melchizedek who was even alive in during the Roman Empire. He was alive during Abrahams time. That is a terrible apologetic for preterism.
The time indicators are everywhere in the new testament. I used to be a futurist as well but those time indicators suggest all the writers thought the return of Jesus was so close, so close they should order their lives on its certainty. In Jerusalem, they even sold their property! Their houses were about to become worthless so why not sell them?
I'm not sure what Hanegraaff is trying to convey in his opening statement? It doesn't appear he is even trying to give any introductory material let alone a defense for his position.
He comes unglued and has no ground to stand on the further on it goes. Not celebrating that, just letting you know. It's hard to watch him fail again and again. He seriously harmed his own reputation on this.
His position seems totally clear from a historical point. A source must be read in context, who wrote it, who was it written to (audience), understanding its content in the language construct of its day, and its genre.
@@matthewvanmatre5137 His position is made totaly false by Matthew 24 as partial preterism is impossible - eitheir full preterism or nothing; thus forcing us to the future for the last generation and forbiding us to claim the past; full preterism - the only one kind of preterism that can be taken from matthew 24 - claim that Jesus arleady come back, thus it's evil and must be rejected by the whole church
Hank speaks beautifully.
Unfortunately it seems he enjoys doing so at the cost of truth.
Having been a long time listener to The Bible Answer man Broadcast
I can say honestly Hank often doesn’t answer the questions however he does this beautifully 😃
Also I believe now that Hank has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy
he does now claim to be a Partial Preterist. I could be wrong but
I recall hearing him state this in a recent video
Yes! I don’t know when this blog was written, but he denounces a belief in full preterism here: equipblog.wpengine.com/understanding-preterism/
In Hanegraaff's opening statement he offers nothing at all to defend the preterist view or to disagree with Hitchcock's opening substantial statement of both scriptural and historical substance as well as logical reasoning. Hanegraaff seems only to be demonstrating his ability to memorize vast quantities of Scripture, but this does not support his preterism in any way
Yes his delivery was at once impressive in scope and disappointing in avoiding the actual question. The preterist side avoids dealing with the preponderance of evidence on the futurist side, or their spiritualizing the text. They are more up front in their own lit when saying, 'a straightforward reading of the text yields a premil view of the events'.
Hank opens up with his pregnant dramatic contrived phrases he uses on air to give himself an image of credibility; then he grandstands his photographic memory by reciting scriptures while not addressing the debate points. This is emotional manipulation, and a smokescreen for his lack of a strong biblical defense of his position. The he precedes to utterly fail to prove his position. IMHO
You're using large words like most people who can't prove a single point. Give me an exact statement Hank made that was false.
You should have invited Joel Richardson. Remember that debate? 😆
Legend has it that Hank still has the imprints of Dr. Hitchcock's shoes on his backside till this very day.
The post-70 A.D. dating of the book of Revelation renders all preterist thought null and void. The earliest Christian historian who recorded the church's knowledge of the Domitianic dating of Revelation was Hegessippus in 150 A.D. (around the time when most of those who would have known John had likely already died), and this continued to be the unanimous view until about 4 centuries later with the Syriac Peshitta NT manuscript in which someone wrote that John was exiled under Nero. It is sometimes claimed that the Neronic dating is in the original, but this is impossible since the original lacked the book of Revelation. From what I've been able to gather, there is no source or reasoning given for this change in that 6th century manuscript. This is problematic at best, and lacks the authoritativeness that would be required to credibly make such a huge revision to what was commonly accepted and passed down from the end of the first century/beginning of the 2nd.
The same can be said for the Muratorian Fragment, which is the 7th century copy of the 2nd century original, with no way to prove the Neronic dating was in the original. There is no record of any of the early church fathers holding to the Neronic date of Revelation. A fascinating glimpse into the early church fathers and what they believed on a variety of topics is in 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs', over 700 pages compiled by David Bercot.
In addition to Hegessippus (110-180 A.D. and who, notably, wrote this decades prior to Irenaeus, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John), Tertullian (155-220 A.D.), Hyppolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.), Eusebius (263-339 A.D.), Jerome (345-420 A.D.), Sulpicius Severus (363-425 A.D.), and a number of others both before and not long after the council at Nicaea all confirm that John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian where he received Revelation. The lack of any dissenting view naming Nero in place of Domitian until the 6th century should give early-date advocates pause. So at least most of the events of Revelation are still in our future (some view the messages to the churches as having already been strictly for them and completely fulfilled, while some view each church as symbolic for a different time period, and of course there could be room for double-fulfillment of most of those first 3 chapters). There was a celebration on Patmos in 1995 commemorating 1900 years (approximately, as in 95 or 96 A.D.) since the Revelation Jesus gave to John. Also, what other events in the 1st century A.D. are ever claimed as taking place 2 or 3 decades earlier (or later, for that matter)? With all of the accurate records kept during the Roman Empire era and surviving today, there is little room for such a vast difference being feasible.
It's commonly believed that Jesus died around 30 or 33 A.D., Paul and Peter were martyred in the 60's, Nero lived from 37-68 A.D., etc. No one says Jesus died in 3 A.D. or 60 A.D., or that Peter and Paul were martyred in the 30's A.D. or 90's A.D., or that Nero actually reigned around the time of Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels. The majority of scholarship places John's writing of Revelation in the mid-90's, but somehow preterists think it's ok to switch this around by 3 decades compared to the overwhelming consensus of the past 2000 years? The great fire of Rome took place for nearly a week during 64 A.D., but no one places it in 62 A.D. let alone 34 A.D. A powerful earthquake in 60 A.D. devastated Laodicea. And yet no one ever says that earthquake took place in 30 A.D. 30 years prior. With the vast majority of evidence to the contrary, preterism literally rests on this single pillar of the dating of the book of Revelation. And, really, that is no pillar at all in light of the historicity of the late date.
But John said that the temple was still standing when he wrote it. It’s also been proven that Irenaeus is not very credible as he said that Jesus was in his 40s when he died. Also, in every gospel Jesus said that he would return in the generation of those that lived in the 1st century. Jesus also told Peter that John would be alive when he returned. On top of all this, John over and over and over again said that the events in Revelation would soon and quickly take place. If it was written after 70ad then this would prove that Jesus and John lied, which we know that Jesus never lied. Preterist are disciples of Christ that believe what he said was true as opposed to saying he was dishonest. It also proves the book of Daniel was true and didn’t have a “missing” infinite number of years that will at some point come to fruition. Everything adds up perfectly with the pre 70ad date and proves that Jesus was truly the messiah. Christ is King and is reigning as we speak.
@@Nobo35 BIG YOUR MAKING TOO MUCH SENSE. AMEN
I would have thought the strongest pillar for preterism is scripture and not much of anything else. It rests largely on the belief of the writers - all of the new testament writers that in their generation Jesus would return in judgment. They were wrong in that does not add up to me.
@@Nobo35 "But John said that the temple was still standing when he wrote it. "
This could not possibly have been the 2nd temple, for multiple reasons which I can lay out here:
Preterism is also easily disproven based on its interpretation of the temple in Revelation (i.e. 'The 2nd temple was still standing since Revelation mentions a temple). When you look at all of the passages that speak of the temple, there's no possible way this is referring to the 2nd temple as preterism claims.
First off, it lacks sound reasoning because Ezekiel was also shown a temple starting in Ezekiel 40 after the first temple had already been destroyed, and a temple was being measured. It clearly wasn't the first temple since it was already destroyed, but applying the the preterist version of reasoning one would have to say that this vision had to have been received while the first temple still stood. This was shown to Ezekiel 25 years into captivity (ch 40, verse 1). He went into exile around 597 B.C., and the first temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.
Take an honest reading of Revelation 3:12, 7:15, 14:15, 14:17, 15:5, 16:1, 16:17.
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.'- Rev 3:12
Is Jesus saying that those who overcome will literally become pillars in the 2nd temple? Obviously not. What about metaphoric pillars in the 2nd temple? And what about He shall go out no more? New Jerusalem? Clearly this is not set in the earthly Jerusalem.
'“These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.' from Rev 7:14-15
Those who went through the Great Tribulation are all here literally serving God round the clock in the 2nd temple in Jerusalem? Even if they were to all fit, which they wouldn't, you need to take into account just where they all come from as it says in verse 9.
'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands' Rev 7:9
ALL nations, ALL tribes, ALL peoples, ALL languages. This was not in the first century A.D., because the Neronic persecution was centered in Rome. It did not extend even to all parts of the Roman Empire, let alone outside of it.
'And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”' Rev 14:15
Was this angel literally coming out of the 2nd temple? Please look up each reference and study them. How were these definitely not referring to the 2nd temple but in Revelation 11 somehow it was? Have preterists even read chapter 11 in its entirety?
Rev 11:1 "Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the TEMPLE OF GOD, the altar, and those who worship there." (emphasis added)
and from Rev 11:19 "Then the TEMPLE OF GOD was opened IN HEAVEN, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple." (emphasis added again)
The scene was set in Heaven, not the earthly Jerusalem. The ark of the covenant was lost after the Babylonian destruction of the first temple in 586 A.D., which is enough all by itself to poke a giant hole through this preterist interpretation in Revelation! This was in no way, shape, or form referring to the 2nd temple in earthly Jerusalem. This is just one of many reasons why the preterist hermeneutic falls flat on its face.
@@Nobo35 it''s important to note that you completely ignored everything I write in the comment you responded to. But I still responded to your claim that the 2nd temple was referred to in Revelation (utterly impossible when examined closely). So that was in my previous comment, and here's my response to you claiming that Irenaeus was not credible. Will you ignore this, too?
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of John. An important note on Irenaeus, who has just 2 popular arguments against him:
The preterist arguments against Irenaeus are either disingenuous, or are unaware that Irenaeus wrote not once but twice in his work 'Against Heresies' that John survived into the time of Trajan and not just Domitian. How then can there be any question about whether he was referring to John's vision or to John himself being seen near the end of Domitian's reign? At best this is sloppy scholarship. At worst it's a willful deceiving of those who haven't read up on Irenaeus. That's like if you had a grandparent who passed away in 1995, and you said they were seen almost in our day towards the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency in the United States. Reagan left office in the 80's so it obviously makes no sense to relegate their death to an earlier time when they lived beyond that time frame.
And yes, Irenaeus got Jesus' age wrong on account of a faulty interpretation of John 8:57. But to then make the claim on a completely unrelated topic that it is also suspect thanks to this error has yet to be extended to any other writer that I'm aware of. It's the 'Irenaeus treatment', as I like to call it. Have you ever misinterpreted a verse? I sure have. If so, does that disqualify you or me indefinitely from ever making a true statement? Is everything else we've ever said automatically wrong thanks to a misinterpretation of a Bible passage? If the answer is no, then why is this supposedly the case with Irenaeus concerning John's exile under Domitian? Has every written statement by Josephus or others preterists rely on been proven factual beyond a shadow of a doubt? If there is just one error anywhere to be found in their writings, why wouldn't this be an automatic potential 'disproving' of everything else they stated? This is cherry-picking to the nth degree. Has a trusted relative or friend ever told you something they genuinely believed true that you later learned to be false? How, then, can you trust anything they say ever again?
Irenaeus in Against Heresies dispelled the Gnostic falsehoods that had infiltrated the church. But was he wrong about Gnosticism because he was wrong about a verse in John 8? Of course not! He was not the first to give the Domitianic dating for John's exile to Patmos, and he certainly wasn't the last.
The preponderance of all of the external evidence even outside Irenaeus and the common knowledge of the Domitianic dating of Revelation in the early church cannot be dismissed so lightly. Preterism was born out of a dismissal of these historical facts.
I don't know what some of you people are seeing but Hank is destroying this guy!
Your comment can be inserted into the dictionary as an additional definition for the word: Ridiculous
Hank spoke plain truth. He stuck with comparing scripture with scripture and refused to use eisegeses. 57:40 "I am not going to test the word of God in light of the fathers but the fathers in light of the Word of God" BRILLIANT!
I have no idea how you could think this. This is one of the most lopsided debates I've ever seen, and I've watched many of them. Hank was clearly rattled when giving his opening statement. I think he already knew it was over. Hitchcock nailed this.
I Love how Mr Hannegraf memorized the scripture.
Dario Gonzalez
The devil can quote scripture too (he quoted Psalms 91 to Jesus in Matthew Chapter 4)
@@jofo817 the devil is strong '' in these last days''
@@turtletype720 The devil is in hell. Evil doesn't come from him. It comes from our hearts.
@@Ajsirb241 Peter 5:8-9 James 4:7
2 Corinthians 2:5-11
2 Corinthians 11:14 just a few of the many verses that prove the devil is not in hell (yet) he is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2) do not be deceived.
The Bible answer man joined the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. He was so opposed to the religious vices and perversions of both Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches..
Hanegraaff isn't proving anything, he is just quoting bible
Yep, we must get away from using the Bible!
Hank used the Word of God to easily prove past fulfillment and that was just a small amount of Biblical proof. Over a hundred verses mentions "about to" come, at hand, soon, etc. The Greek word is Mello, which means "about to" not thousands of years later. Josephus and Tacitus wrote about events that fit Revelation very well, though the book was signified or symbolized to John.
Absolutely painful to listen to Hank.
Mark lays out factual evidence for his position, scripturally the correct position, where Hank stands up there and simply reads verses and then offers his opinion and strawman arguments like the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Sad really, especially because he's teaching this falsity.
Thomas Ice got schooled by Joel Richardson in the Roman antichrist vs Islamic antichrist debate. Check it out, wasn't even close.
Soon Mean's Soon Near means near Hmm Why then does Jesus give so many examples of the servants getting caught asleep so many parables like the virgins in connection to the Olivet discourse and In ADDITION WHY so many prophecies in the old testament, Use the terms just like that again was some 700 or more years later
This is what the Lord says:
“Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
HH commits the “poisoning the well” fallacy by arguing you can’t go with the testimony of the church fathers because the church fathers also taught erroneous doctrines such as blah blah blah …
Scripture is clear and a preterist position replaces Israel, which as a professing Christian, is aborehent.
"When the watchman sees the enemy coming, he sounds the alarm to warn the people." (Ezekiel 33:3)
All that is playing out in the world is exactly how we were told it would in Scripture.
Next up, the rapture of His born again bride (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
Just at a time where virtually everyone is distracted, deceived, and just carrying on with their lives like everything is normal.
More on that:
Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them SUDDENLY, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
But you, brothers and sisters, are NOT in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-5, 11)
For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other, so it will be on the day when the Son of Man comes.
“When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. In those days, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat and the flood came and DESTROYED them all.
And the world will be as it was in the days of Lot. People went about their daily business-eating and drinking, buying and selling, farming and building- until the morning Lot left Sodom. Then fire and burning sulfur rained down from heaven and DESTROYED them all."
Yes, it will be ‘business as usual’ right up to the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
“Where will this happen, Lord?” the disciples asked. Jesus replied,
“Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.”(Luke 17:24, 26-30, 32-33, 37)
The number of signs converging/coming together only increases by the day which are ALL leading up to Jesus' imminent return and the rapture of His born again Church (see 2 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, 1 Timothy 6:9-10, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Romans 1:18-32, Luke 17:20-37, Luke 21:5-36, Matthew 24, and Jude, all leading to Revelation 4-22).
Are you ready for that day?
Admit you're a sinner and fall short (Romans 3:10/23)
Believe in Jesus as your Savior (Romans 10:9-10)
Call upon His name for forgiveness (Romans 10:13)
Believe and trust in Jesus, putting your faith in His shed blood on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), exchanging His perfect life for your fallen one, and let today be the day of your salvation (John 3:3/2 Corinthians 5:17).
Time is short.
The AD 95 date is wrong.
It was Nero who sent John to Patmos after failing to kill him in a vat of boiling oil. The Syriac version of the Apocalypse tells us this. The one and only root source for the later 95-96 AD dating comes from one person who recalls a discussion he had with Polycarp 35 years earlier. Neither men were there.
You Know I am listing and listing to Hanagraph go on an on On scripture his theory even some attack on false pre-trib stuff, But all this time I am waiting for the tie in the proof the Ahah Moment and all I see is a lot of pieces laid on the table but never does he put them together or put any case maybe some philosophy or human reasoning. BUt really Never explains how all these scriptures he spread all over the place come to gether in his way or how they fit his theology other then human reasoning
Hanegraaff quoted....well, misquoted Revelation 3:10 while completely and intentionally (I presume) Luke 21:34 - 36. Then to suggest Revelation is nothing more than recapitulating history is very poor use of his invited debate time. It just goes to show, he may have academic ability but he lacks the clear ability to understand the clear and simple fact statements that Hitchcock presented so precisely. Result: Hitchcock 1 - Hanegraaff 0
AS far as the Church fathers I would actually agree in Fact I am the first to say, Cant go by all the throughout history, However, there is a Huge Difference between 1st and 2nd-century church fathers close to the time of the spotless and those after, He claims he goes on biblical standing not church fathers and rejects 1st generation Christians, If he were talking about Say Augustine I would agree but he is not. However his objection against Hitchcock is AGianst Dispensationalism being Newer doctrine not known by the fathers, ANd I do Agree BUt the same could be said of His preterism AND IDO SAY, The biggest pet peeve i have on preterism is its deception at every point Including the argument that if dispensationalism is not true then preterism is, Wheather partial or whatever term.
EVEN the word partial is a deception as it is 99%
Hold on it was fact when Jesus was born and died so it was not a miss take in a
His focus at one point on "soon means soon" shows rather a dull shallow appreciation for the greek word which did not in any way "mean soon"! In its clearest sense, that word means "When these things begin to happen, they will come with rapid succession and increasing intensity."
Absolutely FALSE! Soon represented TIME not manner!
Is it just me, or does Hank seem to be rather pompous?
It’s not just you.
you're confusing pompous with correct.
When you don't have an argument, as it's clear HH doesn't, he feels he has to compensate with bloated pseudo eloquence
Hanegraaff goes on to emphasize the importance and benefits of memorizing and understanding Scripture. Yet his own knowledge of the words shows little understanding of it
Unfortunate that hanagraaff defected / apostatized from biblical Christianity 😓
I’m not sure it’s unfortunate actually. In 1 Cor. 11:18-19 it says “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.”
@@truthclips yea I think if you google him; he and his family renounced Christ and went full on into eastern orthodox in about 2017 ish
@@truthclips - I wonder if 1 John 2:19 is more fitting as far as Hanegraaff - "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us".
Gone into Eastern Orthodoxy.. but Preterism still preceded that. In my own opinion, Hank's leap into Orthodoxy is just no big surprise. I do believe that if it were possible, Walter Martin would be turning in his grave over all that mess that man has done to the CRI. Hank's beliefs being nowhere near what Martin believed to be Biblical truth, though Hanegraaf, in my opinion, had to have put on a good "show" at the first, before Walter Martin's passing, to get the position. It's also odd to me how, from all I have heard, one of Walter Martin's daughters STILL takes up for Hank and the other one is VERY upset about what he's done to CRI, which has caused (and still does, I believe) a lot of division in Martin's family. What a shame. Hanegraaf is also VERY ill I hear, so we should pray for him. He has a form cancer - I can't remember the type but it is terminal from what I understand.
Thanks for sharing, 'truthclips'!
@@thesimplesojourner1062 That is true, I've seen the pictures that some Christian news places posted online of his whatever it was ceremony to welcome him to that "church".
Understand The Times not sure that is accurate. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Eastern half of the Great Schism. It doesn’t renounce Christ but embraces Christ. It’s also deeply connected to church history and they use imagery to help remember the martyrs and biblical stories. I’m not EO, but I find it very interesting and worshipful, even if it looks different from Protestantism.