Answer this, ‘Bible Answer Man’

It could shape up to be a battle between theological titans. Religious teacher, human rights activist and New York Times best-selling author of “The Islamic Antichrist” Joel Richardson is calling for a public debate with Hendrik “Hank” Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute.

The subject would be “replacement theology,” a concept Hanegraaff recently confronted on his popular broadcast Bible Answer Man.

In response to a caller who brought up Richardson’s new book “When a Jew Rules the World: What the Bible Really Says About Israel in the Plan of God,” Hanegraaff rejected the label of “replacement theology,” a term used to describe those who believe God’s promises to the Jews as a people have been transferred to the Christian church.

Hanegraaff claimed of Richardson: “He intends the moniker ‘replacement theologian’ to be an insult. In reality it is inaccurate and highly ironic. And what I mean by that is if a Christian questions the notion of a pre-Tribulational rapture followed by a Holy Land holocaust, in which the vast majority of Jews perish, then that person is immediately shouted down as a peddler of godless heresy. In fact, popular dispensationalists are blunt in their denunciations.”

Hanegraaff said the use of “replacement theology” as a label is now designed to carry with it negative connotations, among them the belief supersessionists “are now carrying Hitler’s anointing and his message, hardly a charitable remark.”

In contrast, Hanegraaff stated: “This moniker is inaccurate because those who are labeled replacement theologians neither believe that the church has replaced Israel nor the other way around. Instead they hold that all who are clothed in Christ constitute one congruent chosen covenant community connected by the cross. And that’s precisely what you read in Galatians 3: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.’ If you belong to Christ says Paul, then you are Abraham’s seed and you are an heir according to the promise. It’s not a matter of race, it’s a matter of relationship.”

“The promises that God made to Abraham have been fulfilled,” believes Hanegraaff. And for that reason, he finds it “ironic” those who condemn “replacement theology” are themselves “herding Jews into the Holy Land, firmly believing that these Jews will soon be slaughtered in a bloodbath that exceeds that of Hitler’s Holocaust.”

Joel Richardson says he is disappointed in Hanegraaff’s rhetoric and strongly disagrees with his interpretation of Scripture and how he characterized Richardson’s own views.

Richardson told WND: “Over the years, I have frequently listened to, enjoyed, and benefited from Hank Hanegraaff’s radio program. I for one think that Hank has made a fantastic contribution to the field of apologetics. So when a listener called in to ask if Hank had “When A Jew Rules the World”, my newest book, it was quite a personal disappointment to hear him quite brazenly misrepresent not only my work, but me personally, on national radio – all in a rather blasé manner.

“Ironically, rather than addressing the numerous very relevant biblical arguments carefully set forth in “When a Jew Rules the World,” Hank chose instead to spend most of his time engaging in theological demagoguery, casting those with whom he disagrees, as unable to provide any substantive biblical answers, and only resorting to insulting others.”

Richardson charges Hanegraaff falsely represented his position and his attitude towards those who disagree with him.

“Ironically Hank also said that those who reject replacement theology commonly resort to shouting down those with whom we disagree. Mind you, this accusation was spoken into a microphone and broadcast on national radio. But I believe I already used the word ironic.

“I must also point out that despite not having read my book, Hank quite ignorantly cast me as a pretribulational dispensationalist. I am in fact neither. I do believe it is high time that anti-Zionists like Hank recognize the vast and growing number of believers who are not dispensationalists, yet fundamentally reject supersessionism.”

Richardson believes he is part of a growing tendency among evangelical Christians. He opines, “When I consider the great diversity among theologians such as John Piper, Barry Horner, or Dr. Michael Brown, it is clear that the growing number of historical premillennialists can no longer be disregarded through inaccurate stereotyping.”

More importantly, Richardson frankly disagrees with Hanegraaff that all the promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled by God.

He explains: “All ad hominem attacks, accusations, and misrepresenting aside, the real question is did the ‘Bible Answer Man’ provide any actual thoughtful biblical responses to the many challenges presented in “When a Jew Rules the World?” Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, Mr. Hanegraaff made a few significantly inaccurate statements. Let’s briefly consider his most glaring error.

“First, Hank claimed that all of the land promises made to Abraham have already been completely fulfilled, thus God is no longer obligated to honor His promises to the descendants of Abraham. The first glaring problem of course with such claims is that the Bible repeatedly says that promises made to Abraham are eternal and everlasting. While Hank and other supersessionists claim that God is no longer committed to honoring His promises, the Bible places no such statute of limitations on the faithfulness of God, and if we are careful students of the Scriptures, then neither should we.”

Richardson cites two passages of Scripture in particular:

“God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.’” (Genesis 17:19)

“The covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac. Then He confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant.” (Psalm 105:9-10)

Richardson explains: “While Hank and other supersessionists claim that God has reneged on His eternal promises to give the land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, what is clear is that the Gospel of the Apostles included a restored Kingdom of Israel. After Jesus arose from the dead and appeared for many days among the disciples, they asked Him: ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6-7). Note that Jesus didn’t even hint at rebuking such expectations. Instead, he simply told them that it was not yet the time.

“Only a short time later, after Pentecost, when Peter preached the Gospel to the Jewish people, he specifically harkened back to Jesus’ words and spoke of ‘the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time’ (Acts 3:21). The word ‘restoration’ in Greek is apokatastasis, which infers the restoration not only of all creation as it was before the fall, but also of the Davidic royal dynasty, the true theocracy. The very word ‘restore’ infers a return to something that previously existed. It is both a restored Eden, and a restored Kingdom of Israel, with Jesus, the King of the Jews, ruling over the nations. To deny this is to deny the overwhelming testimony of the Scriptures.

“This is why, through the prophet Amos, the Lord spoke of the future eschatological restoration of ‘My people Israel’ to ‘their land which I have given them’ (Amos 9:14–15). What will Mr. Hanegraaff and other supersessionists say of the abundance of such yet-to-be-fulfilled promises?”

However, Richardson still finds common ground with Hanegraaff when it comes to evangelism. Hanegraaff stated in his broadcast: “We ought to leave Jerusalem, go to Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the Earth with the Gospel, for Jesus was never a parochial Jewish Messiah. Rather Jesus Christ was heir to the Gentiles as well, so that the Gospel may go out to the far reaches of the Earth.”

Richardson responds: “I must add that I am grateful that Mr. Hanegraaff did place a special emphasis on the necessity of the Great Commission and an urgency to see the Gospel proclaimed among the lost. This is also my passion. (So long as we maintain the Pauline priority of the Gospel to the Jews first, of course.)”

But Richardson wants a public debate with Hanegraaff in order to clear the air on replacement theology once and for all.

“I would like to take the opportunity of Mr. Hanegraaff’s comments concerning myself, my work and premillennialists in general, to invite Mr. Hanegraaff to a public debate or discussion concerning the Abrahamic covenant as well as the signs that must yet be fulfilled before Jesus returns. I genuinely believe that in light of the anti-Semitism that is now exploding around the world, that such a public discussion, carried out in a respectful and edifying manner, would greatly benefit the Body of Christ.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/answer-this-bible-answer-man/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/answer-this-bible-answer-man/