# Geisler critiques Hanegraff's Book.....



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 10, 2005)

http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/lastdisciple.htm

Very VERY interesting read. Wish he'd dealt with Calvinism this 'fairly'....


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 10, 2005)

*Gary Demar's Refutation of National Liberty Journal*

Granted this is not a reply to Geisler, although in addressing one he addresses the other (and yes, I actually read the Journal itself in hard-copy form). Geisler offers mainly assertions. His whole argument can be summed up in, "Yeah well, we disagree and here are some good dispie authors that agree with us."

Part One

Part Two

When All Else Fails, Use the A-word--Antisemitism!

The Dark Side of Dispensational Theology

This is a reply mainly to Dr Ed Hinson, who had the foremost article in the journal.

[Edited on 6--11-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 10, 2005)




----------



## Poimen (Jun 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> *Gary Demar's Refutation of National Liberty Journal*
> 
> Granted this is not a reply to Geisler, although in addressing one he addresses the other (and yes, I actually read the Journal itself in hard-copy form). Geisler offers mainly assertions. His whole argument can be summed up in, "Yeah well, we disagree and here are some good dispie authors that agree with us."
> ...



With good reason one could call classic dispensationalists 'anti-semites' (if we were going to descend to name calling). Since they assert that the Jews will pick up where we leave off, where is the incentive to bring the gospel to them, and thus where does that leave the Jews except hell? Talk about anti-semitism...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 11, 2005)

I don't really have the time nor do I care to give a full-length response to Dr Geisler. However, such bald assertions on his part should at least be addressed. I'll do this: run a short internal critique on one of his claims. Dispensationalists pride themselves on taking the bible, especially Revelation literally (they don't; no one actually does take the Bible 'literally'). This is fine and dandy and if it were left to this all that I could respond with would be, "well, if it suits you." But what if Scripture itself mandates that it be interpreted in a way that is not literal? What if it demands that such and such verse be taken as symbolic?

Geisler writes:


> *Further, if other parts of the prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24-25 are taken literally by LD and fulfilled literally, then how can it consistently deny a literal fulfillment of the others in the same text*



Simple. We let Scripture decide.

Let's take an example from Revelation 1:20:



> As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars *are* the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands *are* the seven churches.



Let's take an example from Acts 2

Peter equates the Acts 2 phenomena with the prophecy of Joel:



> But this *is* what was uttered through the prophet Joel...
> 
> 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness
> and the moon to blood,
> before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.



Notice that he did not "liken" it to the Joelic prophecy (as Dispensationalist Tommy Ice bends Scripture in the Tim Lahaye Prophecy Study Bible), but he says that it *is*.

As far as we know--Scripture doesn't mention it and neither does Josephus--stars did not fall from the sky nor did the moon turn to blood. Obviously this is symbolic language.

Conclusion:
Geisler, as usual, did not do a good job in dealing with the opposing view. So far for the record, he has misreprensented Calvinism, Van Til, Schaeffer, Bahnsen (Bahnsen challenged him to a debate on ethics and eschatology at Liberty and Geisler wisely declined--actually, he just kept silent. Silence ain't golden, but it is another color.), and now partial-preterism.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 11, 2005)

uhmmm..... amazing how this topic has been hijacked and turned into the usual 'Dispensational bashing' thread......

Geisler wasn't into name calling in his article. I was just pointing to the article, mainly pointing out that he acknowledged a whole lot of disagreement with Hank AND with other dispensationalists and he did so in a fair manner. The stuff DeMar is 'refuting' comes from the _other_ end of the spectrum.

It's amazing how Posties like to latch onto the most extreme examples, call them 'normative' , "refute" them - and think they've refuted all.... 

*user remains premill until someone finds an explanation for Rev. 20:4-6 that doesn't require linguistic gymnastics, uses the 'symbolism' excuse, or rips the text apart to find a conclusion.....*

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 11, 2005)

Kerry, two questions:

1) Did you read the whole National Liberty Journal, where Geisler's article appeared and where the primary thrust was given by Dr Ed Hinson?
2) Did you read my above post, where I actually dealt with Geisler? 

Besides dealing with a few hermeutical flaws of his--showing him, by his own testimony to be in contradiction with scripture--I also wanted to point out, as every calvinist on this board knows, that he cannot/never has represented the other view accurately (Granted, he did a little better this time).

As for your last line, does that mean you wont accept a view that doesn't match your own imposed standards? What if Scripture said that linguistic twisting (nice phrase) was precisely what is needed at this point? Of course, my point isn't that it says that, but only that you are drawing the circle too narrowly.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 11, 2005)

So admittedly, Kerry, your eschatological viewpoint stands or falls on Revelation 20, a highly disputed text?

I'm glad Postmillennialism doesn't rely on singular prooftexts. We have all of Redemptive History as presented from the beginning of Scripture until the end on our side.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 11, 2005)

Kerry, do you mind reading this article?: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt031.htm


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 13, 2005)

For the record.........

I am not a dispensationalist anymore (of any sort). Those who know me know I've been reading Reymond recently and I find pretty decent exegetical evidence for Covenant Theology.

Second, I *am* a premillennialist based not only on Rev. 20, but Daniel, and also 1 Cor. 15. It's late and I don't feel like re-inventing the wheel...... Go read the chapter by Blaising in the 3 Views on the Millennium book and his exegetical treatment of 1 Cor. 15. Ladd's _The Blessed Hope_ as well as his contribution in the Four Views on the Millennium book both have more than ample exegetical evidence for the premill interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 (which is the clear reading of the text anyway....). 

Third, I've read most of what Gentry's had to say (including all of Before Jersualem Fell which I printed off the net, both of his contributions in the 4 Views on Revelation and 3 Views on the Millennium Books and various Covenant Media Foundation articles, as well as Bahnsen and Gentry's joint book on Dispensationalism's 'break-up'), so there's no new argument you or anyone here will post that I haven't already seen and felt came up short. 

Fourth, this discussion's going to go the same place it always goes...... blah blah blah disputed text...blah blah blah....plain reading of the text....blah blah blah....premillennialism was condemned in the early church....blah blah blah.....see this link that refutes your viewpoint.....blah blah blah....see this view that refutes your refutation....blah blah blah... and so on....

and every amill, postmill and covenant premill will claim the same thing you claim Gabriel (we have redemptive history and all of the scriptures on our side....etc...etc...etc...)....so that statement alone says nothing except you believe your own view. 

Unfruitful.... seriously. I have more important things to study up on, write on, etc... Eschatology is truly secondary - important - but secondary. 

You may now continue your LaHaye bashing uninterrupted. It's much easier in your own huddle where your view will never be challenged.....

(it's late. there's an edge on my tone here, I know. forgive me. I'm going to sleep now.)

[Edited on 6-13-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> You may now continue your LaHaye bashing uninterrupted. It's much easier in your own huddle where your view will never be challenged.....



Why not? Saucy, Bock, and Ladd have not captured and thwarted the minds of the American public. If they were writing very bad fiction then we would lower our guns on them, but they're not.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> For the record.........
> 
> I am not a dispensationalist anymore (of any sort). Those who know me know I've been reading Reymond recently and I find pretty decent exegetical evidence for Covenant Theology.
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by OS_X_
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2005)

However, 
The point of this topic was whether Geisler did a fair job. Seeing that he has shown himself incapable of accurately representing anyone who disagrees with him fairly (Van Til, Schaeffer, Edwards, Calvinism en toto), he has the deck stacked against him. To his credit, he did a better job on partial pret than he did on Calvinism. Did he do a good job? Not by a long shot. 

In some ways, we do use the Scriptures as proof-texts and we thus hold to these presuppositons religiously. That is when we run internal critiques on the other system, which I did on Geisler concerning his hermeneutical method--showing by his own words that his system doesn't hold up to logical criticsm. I attempted to show that by taking revelation literally one must take it symbolically, figuratviely, literarily, etc. Therefore, by showing that Geisler was correct on the surface level, I showed him by his own words to be incorrect on the systematic level.


[Edited on 6--13-05 by Draught Horse]


----------

