Hank Hanegraaff is often heard quoting the phrase "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things charity."  I wonder, though, where is the charity and liberty of which he speaks in his own testimony and teaching?

I have been interested in Hanegraaff and his teachings since attending one of his conferences. I knew, though he is very ambiguous when it comes to actual details in his eschatological viewpoints, it was sure to be an interesting evening. When I left the conference, I was completely convinced that Hanegraaff obviously does not practice what he teaches in regards to humility, charity, or biblical literacy.

However, I refuse to resort to the kind of demeaning rhetoric that he uses when attempting to make his point. More time was spent belittling dispensationalism at the conference and Hank's beliefs concerning the nation of Israel than was spent asserting the validity of his own beliefs of God’s total rejection of Israel. The rants that were heard that night had little if anything to do with his proving his questionable "Exegetical Eschatology"  which he teaches. His seminar was filled with juvenile name calling and misinformation of dispensational teachers and their teachings. Instead, I will focus on the wayward theology that is being propagated as truth by Hanegraaff and his staff, Replacement Theology.

You do not have to listen to many teachers very long before you are able to determine whether or not they hold to Replacement Theology. In brief, Replacement Theology is the belief that the Church has replaced Israel in every blessing. However, one should point out that those who hold to this erroneous view only attribute Israel’s blessings to the Church, they shy away from any judgements. Replacement Theology is a shining example of poor Biblical interpretation.

In my years at biblical colleges and universities, I have heard a range of emotion when the topic of Israel would arise in a discussion. Most often when the topic came up, it was met by either the extreme of anti-Semitism or love. Hardly anyone is indifferent when Israel is mentioned. That being said, I must also mention that while I was at this conference, when Replacement Theology was being taught, I looked around the room and saw what looked like a sea of heads nodding in agreement as if they were choreographed. I cannot say I was surprised at the realization. Rather, I was saddened by the welcome acceptance of a belief that is easily refuted by proper interpretation of Scripture.

By proper interpretation, I mean the implementation of the Literal-Grammatical-Historical method. To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a "wooden literalism,"  nor to a "letterism,"  nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any "mechanical"  understanding of the language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point, and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary traditional range of designation which includes "facet"  understanding.

Thus, a normal or literal reading of Scripture will take into account figures of speech and symbolism. We are able to determine whether or not the passage that we are reading should be taken at face value or if it contains symbolism or figures of speech by asking ourselves three easy questions. The first question we need to ask is if the passage harmonizes with the flow of Scripture and the context. Next, we should determine whether or not it harmonizes with the whole of Scripture. Third, we must discover when the words in the passage are taken literally if they are at variance with the nature of the subject discussed in the passage. These questions will allow the careful student to determine if the passage should be read in a figurative manner or in a nonfigurative manner. There are at least three reasons why a literal hermeneutic should be considered the proper approach. The first reason being the nature of language itself. The logical purpose of language is to enable communication effectively. Words have meaning, and the hearer should be able to clearly understand them. When Jesus spoke to the apostles, He expected them to understand. Even when He spoke in parables, the stories were not intended to be riddles. Jesus explained most of the parables that He spoke, and all had a literal meaning behind them. The second reason is the historical fulfillment of prophecy. Every prophecy thus far has been fulfilled literally, and it makes no sense to suddenly conclude that the remaining prophecies should now have an allegorical fulfillment. To spiritualize unfulfilled prophecy is to shift the pattern of prophetic fulfillment which would be unnecessary and completely illogical. Third, when one is given the opportunity to interpret the Bible without a solid framework of guidelines, a large opening is created for the unconstrained imagination which can pave the way for all kinds of dangers.