Christians in Debate
I’ve decided to post three hour-long videos from the Pre-Trib Research Center founded by Dr. Tim LaHaye, and make some comments about the debate for those who may be interested. I encourage anyone reading this post to watch the debates in their entirety and take copious notes. Stop the video occasionally and take a break. Maybe even research some of the things that are being said. The debate centers around what the best date is for the authorship of the book of Revelation. Hank Hanegraaff supports an early date of 65 AD (which makes the bulk of Revelation a historical account), while Dr. Mark Hitchcock supports a later date of 95 AD from a dispensational system. My opinion is that both men made some great points. However, there were some very obvious barbs and inflammatory comments made from both sides and I was disappointed in that respect. This was clearly not a debate to attempt any kind of understanding between the two positions in Christian love. As is often the case in debates, questions are raised and statements are made that have no relevance to the topic. So, if you watch the debates and think someone made the better case for their position, I’d like to know. Or, if you just want to share a comment or state your position, I’d love to hear that as well. Also, let me know if you thought any good for the kingdom of God came out of this. Note: You should probably have high speed Internet or else start the video, pause it and walk away for a while and then return to watch the videos. Blessings and peace!
Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 1 of 3) from Thomas Ice on Vimeo.
Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 2 of 3) from Thomas Ice on Vimeo.
Debate on the Date of the Book of Revelation (Part 3 of 3) from Thomas Ice on Vimeo.
If you go to the Pre-Trib Research Center website, you can download Dr. Hitchcock’s dissertation on the topic at:
12 Comments »
Leave a Reply
About
- David and Paula McAfee on Rainbow Trail
Our Story…
David has served in many areas which include serving as an officer in the USMC, law enforcement, information technology, sales and more importantly ministry. He has been a Minister of Single Adults, Minister of Education and Senior Pastor in Lubbock, TX and recently Tucumari, NM. David received a Bachelor of Arts in Law Enforcement Administration, a Master of Arts in Political Science, and has one semester left to complete a Master of Divinity degree. Paula was formerly an executive secretary with Occidental Petroleum, Oklahoma University College of Continuing Education, and Texas Tech University Law School.
Sangre de Cristo Journal is a collection of postings about seminary life in the Sangre de Cristo mountains and is not endorsed by the Seminary, although I think they like it. Hopefully it will give prospective students a better feel for what a non-traditional seminary atmosphere is like and provide some meaningful information that the Seminary website does not provide.
Want to subscribe to this blog and receive updates when new postings are made? Just click on one of the comments and make sure to select “Notify me of new posts via email.”
Quote of the Week
Trifles Which God Gives
“The emperor Augustus, in his great feasts, gave trifles to some—but gold to his favorites.
Just so—honors, riches and worldly pleasures are the trifles which God gives to the worst of men.
God gives His gold—His special love and grace—only to His people.” - Thomas Brooks Heaven on Earth 1667
Thanks for posting these. To be honest… whenever I think about Tim Lahaye I think about his fictitious book which leads me to think that he doesn’t take the Bible seriously. My first pastor I think believed in this, however, he did not force it down our throats. I am trying not to ridicule. Most of the people at my home church did not believe in a pre-trib and later I was not allowed to read his books. I only read the youth edition of left behind. I have watched most of the movies. When I went to college I did not read any material by Tim LaHaye. We were allowed to look at the different views. However, when I did take systematic theology my professor only believed in pre-mil/ post-trib as most reasonable view. I think most of most profs were okay with Amill as well.
So did you think one of the debaters did better than the other in presenting his position? From my point of view, Hank Hannegraaf come across as an angry man. However, when it got to the Q&A, the home team took some really cheap shots at him in the form of the questions they asked. I don’t agree with some of the things LaHaye teaches, but I enjoyed the movies as entertainment. It it sad that Christian movie producers think they need to attempt to boost the quality of their movies by hiring actors who are not Christians or who have serious moral issues. That being said, I do think LaHaye is serious about the Bible.
. Today, I reluctantly watched the first part of the debate—part 1 of 3. I usually never listen to debates. I am not familiar with any of the debaters. I never have listened to their radio shows nor read their books. ; however, I am growing to love seeing this kind of heated dialogue in action. I remember a few older Christians telling me that debates were not very spirit filled, but I think they are wrong. I think we should be reminded that we need to love God with our minds and to contend for the faith. In the past I’d rather had read a book because it provided more information, but this debate did prove to be useful. I am actually enjoying it! They both had great information on the church fathers and have very good arguments for their view and even unfortunately some weak arguments. I am impressed how both of the speakers did not use the same presentation style. They each had their own unique way in presenting their arguments. The first 30 minutes of this debate stimulates me to continue learning and studying:. I would like to read more literature on the church fathers.
Before I started episode 1 of 3, I did presupposed that the dispensationalist ( Mark Hitchhock) was going to start pulling out his eschatological charts and start confusing people. I am inclined to believe that dispensationalists use newspaper exegesis due to: a Pastor who tried to predict the future whenever there was war in the Middle East, a Sunday school teacher who tried to go through Revelation in a few weeks and John Hagee. I was definitely not able to keep up with the charts possibly due to my low IQ. I did not get much from my Sunday School Teacher accelerated presentation on Revelation due to a lack of time we had and we never really had enough time to meditate on the scripture. He also wanted people to have their own input. I did not think this was fruitful because most of class barely read their Bible and did not know much about genre. All they did known about the end times view was the Left Behind novel and about ” the Blessed Hope”–the rapture. . The first time I read through Revelation. The main event that stood out in my mind was the worship that occurred throughout this book which I believe the “Left Behind” series fails to portray due to it revealing only one dimension of this book of the Bible.
I really don’t see Hank as “:angry man” in part 1 of the debate. I don’t know if he should have ridiculed Tim LaHaye in public. I do know that the Apostle paul would often publicly rebuke certain people in his letters. Mr. Hank was probably concerned with Dr. Tim LaHaye misleading millions of people due to his misinterpretation of a certain passage in Revelation. ( I do not know what the proper mode of rebuke would be). Maybe you should consult the “ Book of Order. I do not know if he had already talked with him in private. I think he was only using him as an example and trying to include his audience in his presentation. I don’t think everyone is going to be in agreement . I hope there are some people standing up for truth in this postmodern age. Where people believe everything is relative.
Thank you so much for posting these. I grew up pre-mil but saw problems with it. The preterist view holds more answers for me so I am more on the side of Hanegraaff even though he does not align himself with the preterist viewpoint. Both sides made great points but the most embarrassing part was Tommy Ice’s inability to read questions you know he has seen a hundred times before.
i FINALLY found the debate online! ur site was the first one 2 come up w/ it….i’ve since found 5 more that offer it, but anyway, i’ve now watched it 3 times thru, after having just read hank hanegraaff’s book, “the apocalypse code”. puddleglum, that was one of two things i indeed noticed…that ice couldn’t even read a question right! the OTHER thing i noticed was, most EVERY time hank started talking, there was whispering going on, like they weren’t paying attention @ all (u can really hear this if u use head phone verses just listening w/ the computer speakers) i just kept saying, how rude! it’s like, “well, since we don’t agree w/ him, or knows what he believes already, we rn’t really interested in listening 2 him, rn’t going 2 pay attention 2 him!” i love hank’s position, i agree w/ him, & i think he won the debate hands down. the ONLY thing i don’t get is Y he doesn’t like 2 b even called a PARTIAL preterist, tho what he said here makes a LITTLE sense, doesn’t want 2 b tied down 2 it because he wouldn’t b able 2 interpret the bible using art & science, but hitchcock WAS right on that point; u might not agree w/ all aspects of the eschatology view u take, but u still DO fall under that category. Even hank, on page 158 of his book, said not b a FULL preterist, but implying that yes, u’d b @ least a PARTIAL preterist. yes, i’m not 100% y he has such a problem being called it. but i think hank won hands down. i think they both had a Christ-like spirit…it’s just that i @ times think both seemed 2 sure have thin-skin (easily offended), but anyway, it was a great debate!
Hi Steve – here in Oklahoma where the Left Behind philosophy rides high, I had trouble finding other possible explanations for Revelation. As a kid I found it strange that people tried to use the English alphabet to determine who the Best of Revelation was even though the English alphabet didn’t exist in the first century. I just figured that they had thought of that but knew something else I wasn’t aware of. As I got older, I realized that it is easier to be faithful to tradition than actual truth. Gary DeMar (partial preterest) of American Vision sells a debate he did with Tommy Ice several years ago at Biola University. The crowd was extremely enthusiastic for DeMar of which he was the receipient of much applause and laughter (laughing with – not at). I’m sure Ice is an honorable man but he is not cut out for debates which is probably why LaHaye rounded up Hitchcock who is much more articulate. The debate between DeMar and Ice was so embarrasing for LaHaye, that I believe (having to rely on memory here) it was LaHaye himself who had to remind the audience which doctrine that school was built on. You can probably find the audio portion of this debate in full if you surf the web. DeMar has an excellent book called “Last Days Madness” that has been very helpful to me and I have given away several copies of it. It is a great foundation for someone being introduced to this line of thought. I think the church has become slothful due to the pretrib theory because there is no need to polish the brass on a sinking ship. I also believe this trend is starting to turn around because we have lived through so many failed prophecies at this point but in the spirit of Christian charity I do hope Jack van Impe sells enough copies of his video on 2012 possibly being the end that he can recoup the money he has invested in it. Got to admire the guy’s tenacity. By the way, if you go to Hank’s website and visit the archives, you can find two shows where he interviewed Gary DeMar. That’s when I came back to being a Bible Answer Man fan once again.
Opps – meant Beast of Revelation not “Best”
sorry, i just keep having thoughts i want/need 2 share: 1, as far as being an Adventist, i used 2 b one…starting in my late teens…then sort of leaving the Lord 4 awhile, then 10 years ago, getting on my knees, i asked Jesus (back) in2 my life. He came, & as soon as Adventist friends learned of it they started sending me all kinds of literature, etc., & i became re-baptized, etc., BUT they gave me some tapes by a dennis priebe, & THAT was their downfall as far as me belonging 2 the SDA church! i said, ‘that is complete legalism! they really DO teach legalism! they really r gnostic!’ etc. so THAT is what made me memorize romans & galatians so i could know inside & out what the bible said re: law & grace, righteousness by faith, etc, (rom 8:28), but even while memorizing romans 11, i’d argue w/ my adventist friend that israel was still going 2 b playing a role (of course, they think THEY r the true Israel…it’s anyone who believes in Jesus!)…so this book has really opened my eyes 2 that. i think every Adventist should read this book! (page 44 especially!)
2, i think there is power, or it is exciting, 2 believe that Jesus could come 10 seconds from now or 10,000 from now, that there is NOTHING inhibiting Him from coming. We just always have 2 b ready!
3, Even the disciples got it wrong or misunderstood Jesus about the Temple being destroyed, etc., so it IS plausible that most of the evagenical world is wrong re: end time events, tho they r sincere in what they believe!
but in truth, this debate, 4 some reason, almost brought me 2 tears…4 many reasons, but i just loved it!
Always great to hear from Oklahoma…what part are you from? I graduated from Del City.
I live in Yukon, OK.
i would love 2 c/hear that debate between demar & ice, so, if i can find it i indeed will, but anyway, yes, hank’s book has totally changed my view on eschatology. i used 2 b a dispensationalist until i was about 16, then i moved over 2 the historical position, view point (used 2 b an Adventist 4 awhile in other words). i’ve memorized romans & galatians & had started memorizing revelation, & hank’s program, the bible answer man, FINALLY came back in the seattle area. b4 he went off the air here 4 years ago he had been PROMISING a book on revelation, on youtube, b4 i got the book, i did a search on “hank hanegraaff” 2 c if i saw any sound bytes i’d like 2 listen 2, & one of the hits that came up was the hitchcock talking ABOUT the debate he had w/ hank. well, i listened 2 that & just decided i HAD 2 get his book! i didn’t even know what preterism was….had never heard that view, or, mayb i had, but thought it was ridiculous 2 think most everything happened in the 1st century. in fact, i had heard that view view b4…just not that term, preterist, because prominent Adventist leaders have also turned 2 that belief, BUT @ THE TIME THOT THAT WAS RIDICULOUS! He has COMPLETELY changed my view. anyway, in truth, when hitchcock had kept saying how he had won the debate, i admittedly was a little apprehensive 2 listen 2 it, thinking i might not like the book after that, the apocalypse code…even tho i knew dispensationalism was wrong. i mean, b4 reading his book, i thought EVERYONE believed that modern day israel had SOMETHING 2 do w/ end time events no matter if u were a dispensationalist or no (everyone besides the adventist church, that is). i mean, right after reading his book, i wondered what the late walter martin’s view was on eschatology, because i kept saying 2 myself, “surely he wouldn’t subscribe 2 hank’s view because i remember him saying something like, “the antichrist was going 2 b much more than that..” FUTURE tense. shortly after reading his book, i did a search of walter martin & eschatology & came up w/ a 6 part talk on the tribulation, & while he wasn’t a dispensationalist, he certainly believed that modern day israel, since 1948, had something 2 do w/ something….(luke 21:24, etc) but anyway, yes, i like hank a lot, i don’t believe in the pre-trib, but i think they r Godly people. i mean, @ ANYTIME we could die, or a personal tribulation….we need 2 b ready 4 Jesus 2 come back @ ANY time! hey, something i just thought of when hitchcock said that whatever near & soon meant in the front of the book also has 2 mean that in the back of the book….well, what about 2 things: rev 1:19, the things which R (just about 2 happen), & the things which shall b hereafter (Jesus coming back), & what about 2peter 3:8-10, where a 1000 years is NOTHING 2 the Lord….He is waiting so EVERYONE can have a chance, but soon He’s not going 2 b longsuffering anymore…that it all does have 2 come 2 an end @ some point! anyway, i really did not mean 2 say this much, but anyway!
Thanks for your comment Steve. I wasn’t there, but I think Hank probably had some supporters as well. As Puddeglum and you both point out, Ice had some difficulties for some reason. It is disappointing when Godly people can’t show respect for one another. We have had some pretty good debates here at the seminary, but I love my brothers and love to hear what they have to say. In some instance, I have been willing to alter my views.