Posted on 08/11/2006 6:56:12 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Hagee in hot seat after Falwell furor drags him into possible Israeli dirty tricks game
Neither San Antonio televangelist John Hagee nor the Rev. Jerry Falwell has expressed a belief in a "dual covenant theology" as reported Wednesday in the Jerusalem Post, Hagee and a local rabbi said Thursday.
"Dual covenant theology" refers to a belief that Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ — as Christians do — because of God's covenant with the ancient Israelites.
Hagee has said for many years that he believes that God's "new covenant" with Christianity does not "replace" his covenant with the Israelites, which also applies to today's Jews.
Many Christians have interpreted that to mean he believes Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus and have criticized Hagee for it, but he has not said that himself.
A steadfast supporter of Israel since 1981 on biblical grounds, Hagee has maintained a policy of not proselytizing Jews.
Hagee was traveling Thursday and was not available for comment. But in a letter to the Post, which his secretary provided to the San Antonio Express-News, he reiterated his non-proselytizing policy toward Jews, adding that if Jews inquire about the Christian faith, "we give them a full scriptural presentation of redemption as presented in scripture. Regardless of the response from the Jewish person, we remain friends in support of the State of Israel as required by scripture."
Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg of Congregation Rodfei Sholom, a close friend of Hagee's for more than 25 years, told the Express-News on Thursday that the inaccuracy arose when he was interviewed about the Feb. 7 founding of a new Christian organization to lobby for the State of Israel with federal officials. It's called Christians United For Israel.
About 300 U.S. evangelical leaders attended a closed Feb. 7 meeting at Hagee's Cornerstone Church to discuss the need for the organization.
Note that Hank Hanegraaf's Christian Research Institute has published a paper on John Hagee, in which they find that Hagee does teach, preach, and practice a form of dual-covenantism despite his protests to the contrary. Here is the section of that paper which addresses the issue:
Salvation Without Conversion?Hagee is recognized as a fierce foe of anti-Semitism. An outspoken supporter of the Jewish people, Judaism, and the nation Israel, he has been given the “Humanitarian of the Year” award by the San Antonio B’nai B’rith Council. Hagee has also been bestowed the “ZOA Israel Service Award” by the Zionist Organization in Dallas and honored with the “Henrietta Szold Award” by the Texas Southern Region of Hadassah.8
While his bold stance against anti-Semitism is certainly praiseworthy, Hagee’s zealousness for the Jewish people and their cause has led him to commit a most serious doctrinal error — salvation for the Jews without conversion to Christianity. One newspaper account puts it this way:
Trying to convert Jews is a “waste of time,” he [Hagee] said. . . .
Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced with Christianity, he says.
“The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses,” Hagee said. “I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.
“The law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation. And God has not,” said Hagee . . .9
“There are right now Jewish people on this earth who have a powerful and special relationship with God,” declares Hagee in one of his books. “They have been chosen by the ‘election of grace’ in which God does what he does without asking man to approve or understand it. Let us put an end to the Christian chatter that “all the Jews are lost” and can’t be in the will of God until they convert to Christianity! . . . there are a certain number of Jews in relationship with God right now through divine election.” 10
Hagee also affirms: “If God blinded the Jewish people to the identity of Jesus as Messiah, how could He send them to hell for not seeing what he had forbidden them to see?”11 He continues, “All people will gain entrance into heaven through Christ. The question is one of timing.” 12
Such rhetoric raises some thorny questions. When Hagee says “all people will gain entrance into heaven through Christ,” he is either advocating universalism (literally all people — Jewish and Gentile — will be saved), or he believes that all Jews will be saved. In either case, both positions are in serious error, but the latter is more consistent with his other statements.
The “timing” of the salvation of the entire Jewish nation is actually irrelevant to Hagee’s argument since he advocates that it is a waste of time attempting to convert them. At best, then, Hagee implies that even if they are not currently saved, God will save all Jewish keepers of the Law — past, present, and future — at some future point.
The Bible paints a different picture. The apostle Paul demonstrates that Israel had a responsibility to respond to the Gospel, but rejected it. In Romans 10:19-21, he asks, “Did they [the Jews] fail to hear?” The rhetorical answer is “no.” Paul relates that, as light and darkness are understood by all, so the gospel has been made known to all the Jews (cf. Acts 17:6; 21:28). He continues, “Did they fail to understand?” The answer once again is “no.” Since Israel has become disobedient through unbelief (Rom. 11:30), God has delivered the gospel to the Gentiles.13
But God has not entirely rejected Israel — Paul (himself a Jew) is living proof of this (Rom. 11:1). God has preserved a remnant, while the others were hardened as a consequence of their unbelief and trusting in works instead of the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 11:5-7; cf. 9:31-32; 11:20-23). Elsewhere the apostle writes, “. . . by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His [God’s] sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:20, 23-24, emphasis added).
To drive the point home, Paul goes on to say, “. . . the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise nullified; . . . it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace” (Rom. 4:13-14, 16). Scripture draws no distinction between Jews and Gentiles on the issue of salvation, which is attained by grace through faith alone in Christ, “apart from works of the law” (3:28; cf. vv. 21-22).
Paul recognized that the Jews of his day had a misguided zeal that caused them to stumble on this very point (9:31-32; 10:2-4). Why would he suffer great anguish and wish he were accursed for Israel’s sake if none of them were truly lost? His anguish comes from the realization that many Israelites are not saved (Rom. 9:3, 6, 27; 10:1, 9-15; cf. Acts 2:14, 21, 37-39; Rom. 11:14, 17-23).
The Law, revealed through the Jews, was meant to be “our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:24-25). As the Bible clearly states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (vv. 28-29). To be saved, a person — whether Jew or Gentile — must turn to Christ (5:4-6; cf. John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-13) who is “the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). In writing that the “message of the gospel was from Israel, not to Israel,”14 Hagee discourages Christians from sharing the Good News with unsaved Jews who, like everyone else, have need of the gospel if they are to spend eternity with God in heaven.
Citations from article
8 - John Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel? (San Antonio, TX: Dominion Publishers, 1987), [174-75].
9 - Julia Duin, “San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism,” The Houston Chronicle, 30 April 1988, 1.
10 - Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 124-25, 127 (emphasis in original).
11 - John Hagee, personal faxed correspondence to CRI, 18 October 1994, 3.
12 - Ibid., 6.
13 - To cement the use of the rhetorical “no,” these verses are supported by the Greek negative particle me. Whenever the me particle is used in an interrogative sentence, the response is negative (cf. 1 Cor. 9:8-10; 11:22; 14:29-30; Rom. 11:1). Had a “yes” — rather than a “no” — response been intended, the Greek particle ou — instead of me — would have appeared (cf. Rom. 9:21). For documentation, see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In Light Of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934),1173-74; and A. T. Robertson & W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar Of The Greek Testament, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 390.
I have requested the Mods to change the title to reflect how it reads at the proper source.
Hanegraff, on the other hand, is a nasty troublemaker whose ministry consists of attacking other Christian ministries. I have zero respect for him.
Hanegraff aspires to direct God along Hanegraff approved lines. Jesus clearly stated that NO MAN comes to the Father but by Him. HOW God accomplishes that in all cases is still held in His private knowledge, Hanegraff assertions notwithstanding.
I have to confess a similar disdain for Hanegraaf. In part for his attacks on Calvinism, in part for IMO how his radio show is produced (IMO sloppy call handling re scripture citations), but mostly for how Hanegraaf has conducted himself in managing the late Dr. Walter Martin's ministry.
But with all that said, what the CRI report says about Hagee matches up with what Hagee himself has said and done.
He seems to be contradicting himself, to some extent.
bttt
To be fair, I've read a few dispensationalist writings that suggest the Jews are prevented from responding positively to the Gospel, until after the Church is raptured. I'm not aware of this being a widely-held belief within dispensationalism, but if that's Hagee's view, it could explain his "no evangelizing" policy. In other words, "why bother?"
But even barring both of these interpretations (dual covenant and "can't respond"), Hagee's priorities are clear. While Hagee supports the Nation of Israel, he leaves individual Jews to their own devices, to discover Christ's gospel for themselves.
I've heard this too, usually from my fellow dispy Pentecostals.
Very informative. It does seem that, if he believes Jewish people need the Gospel for salvation, his policies are inconsistent with that belief.
I was listening to one of his debate shows Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist. Hank kept stressing how both positions were tolerable within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
I have long wondered about that claim...not whether the positions were orthodox or not, but just how Hank sees fit to define what orthodoxy *is*.
The National Vanguard? What gives?
Why didn't you post the entire article as it appears in the San Antonio Express-News? Why just the excerpt that was in the National Vanguard?
And your post #1 is just a continuation of the article found at the National Vanguard. Though you were able to find it on a different site.
I contend that you posted this article from two different sources to bypass FreeRepublic's policy against posting anything from National Vanguard. Too bad you were unable to post the middle part of the story as it cannot be found on any other site. To make your National Vanguard article complete, let's look at the middle part of the story:
Your apology in post #2 should be extended to include apologizing for subverting FreeRepublic's posting policies.
Hmm..I don't know about that:
"Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin." St. John 8:22
I think Jesus makes it pretty clear that you must believe in Him and not reject Him."He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Where's the loophole out of that?
Honestly, I was unaware that the "National Vanguard" version wasn't the full article. Thank you for calling that to my attention. Everyone, here is the missing conclusion as found on the My San Antonio.com version, which was excized from the Vanguard version. Religion Moderator if it is possible, please amend this to the bottom of the posted article:
Scheinberg said he told the Post he'd found a "tremendous consensus" among attendees - including representatives for Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson - that the new organization should not proselytize Jews.Note that only Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg and Jerry Falwell are quoted in the remaining section, not a direct representative of Hagee himself. And a big "bravo!" to Falwell for making the statement that he did. Nothing said in the remaining section alters or modifies the prior-stated Hagee "policy" to not evangelize the Jewish people.The reporter asked if "Falwell agreed with Hagee," he said.
"I told him that I'd never spoken with Jerry Falwell but since this organization was to be non-conversionary and Hagee has been non-conversionary for 25 years, one could infer that Falwell agrees with Hagee on (the new organization) not proselytizing Jews.
"It came out looking like both Hagee and Falwell agree with dual covenant theology. But neither one does. The reporter never should have connected dual theology with my interview.
"I never spoke about a dual covenant theology. I never stated to the reporter what Dr. Falwell personally believed. I never said Dr. Falwell has changed or altered his scriptural position," Scheinberg said.
Falwell, in a statement posted on his Web site, www.falwell.com, said he stands "on the foundational biblical principle that all people - Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. - must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to enter heaven."
And your post #1 is just a continuation of the article found at the National Vanguard. Though you were able to find it on a different site.
The "continuation of the [Vanguard] article" is actually an portion of a CRI article on Hagee himself. It was not written by, or for, the National Vanguard.
I contend that you posted this article from two different sources to bypass FreeRepublic's policy against posting anything from National Vanguard. Too bad you were unable to post the middle part of the story as it cannot be found on any other site.
You may believe what you want. In truth, here's what happened:
I was searching for articles on Hagee, via Google's news page, because I knew he doesn't evangelize the Jewish people, and that there had been talk of him being a dual-covenantalist at some point. The "National Vanguard" version came up in the search, and it fit what I was looking for - it discussed Hagee's "policy", and it provided citations from additional Hagee sources to the same end. I cut-and-pasted the article, filled in the URLs and sources, hit "post.....
....and blammo! "National Vanguard articles are not welcome on FR". No loss, as I wasn't crazy about the reader editorial that appeared in the middle (the red text that you posted in your reply). But I noticed that the "Vanguard" article was actually a combination of a legitimate news story (the aforementioned "San Antonio version") originally published at a site allowed by FR, combined with a legitimate critique of Hagee written by a well-known radio ministry (Hanegraaf's CRI), with an inflammatory title at the tope, and a red-texted inflammatory editorial inserted inbetween.
I compared the two to make sure nothing else had been changed, noted where the "Vanguard" version began it's own diatribe, and removed everything from there down. I then changed the URL to reflect the original source, cut-and-pasted the CRI excerpt direct from their site as post #1, and added CRI's source footnotes. Focusing on the content of the article itself, I neglected to change the "source name" field, and the thread title from the "Vanguard" version to the "San Antonio" version. As soon as I discovered my error, I pinged the moderators and had both corrected - and alerted the entire thread, owning up to my error. And that's EXACTLY how it went down. I've never been to this "Nationa Vanguard" site before, and I have no intentions on paying them a visit since.
Now there your anti-zionist racist article is complete.
If it's your contention that J. Michael Parker of the San Antonio Express-Chronicle and The Christian Research Institute are "anti-zionist racists", there's nothing more for me to say - you're welcome to voice your opinion. But if you're claiming that I'm an "anti-zionist racist" for not being a Hagee-style dispensationist, or simply for posting two same-subject articles side-by-side in order to draw a conclusion, then you'll have to take that up with the Religion Moderator.
Your apology in post #2 should be extended to include apologizing for subverting FreeRepublic's posting policies.
Not my intention, as already expressed in detail earlier. But I will bow to the RM's judgment, if he decides that the article is inflammatory regardless and should be removed.
BTTT
There is no loophole. But to fully understand the possibilities you must have a thorough understanding of the nature of Time for The Savior transcends Time and your spirit will exist even when your body turns to dust. What do you know of what will happen in the spirit realm? Looking for loopholes is decidedly the fool's/lawyer's approach to ignoring what Jesus said must be to be born again. Your question rings of reductionism, as if our finite minds could limit God's means.
Note that only Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg and Jerry Falwell are quoted in the remaining section, not a direct representative of Hagee himself.
And why do you think that Falwell was brought up in this article at all? Just to associate the two names together. Guilt by being associated together in print.
If it's your contention that J. Michael Parker of the San Antonio Express-Chronicle and The Christian Research Institute are "anti-zionist racists", there's nothing more for me to say - you're welcome to voice your opinion.
My contention is that if you take two separate articles from two sources and put them together to recreate an article found on an anti-zionist website, you have recreated the anti-zionist article almost in it's entirety.
But if you're claiming that I'm an "anti-zionist racist" for not being a Hagee-style dispensationist
I couldn't care less about your or Hagee's views on dispensationalism. But I am tired of the media and moonbats hopping on this dispensationalist bandwagon since 1987 because it is the only way they have found to attack Hagee and discredit his views on Israel. And I am tired of Christian theologians and writers letting themselves be used as puppets in this war against Hagee and other good Christian leaders.
BTW you never heard Hagee say that he was infallible, quite the opposite in fact, but you never read that in any of these diatribes.
How do YOU behave when you target someone for prosletyzing? Just curious.
Admittedly some, at least in my own experience. 2/3? Sorry, but I can't substantiate that.
And any time you find Hagee and Falwell or Pat Robertson referred to in the same article, you can bet it is a hit piece. And why do you think that Falwell was brought up in this article at all? Just to associate the two names together. Guilt by being associated together in print.
Why complain about Falwell and Hagee? Are they secretly one person, like Batman and Bruce Wayne, never seen in the same place at the same time?
I thought the original writer was entirely reasonable in pointing out the "no evangelizing Israel" policies of both men. Hagee and Falwell both responded to that inference. Past that, I used the CRI article to point out that Hagee's policy is out of synch with his rebuttal. I'll grant you this much, though: any time you see Falwell's name in print, post-1989 (when he publicly dissolved his "Christian Right" Moral Majority organization) - unless he's seeking media attention via appearance or interview - it's a hit piece. IMO he's marginalized himself that badly, at least post-1989. I stopped paying attention to him (and all references to him) a long time ago.
BTW you never heard Hagee say that he was infallible, quite the opposite in fact, but you never read that in any of these diatribes.
And I haven't heard you say you're infallible, but then again I'm not mashing the ABUSE button on you, either. Some things are just a given. Apparently, offering me the benefit of the doubt isn't one of them.
All told, I have a hard time believing you'd take such issue with someone in the Moonbat Media restating a CRI report, and not with the CRI report on Hagee itself. Does "Vanguard"'s reprinting of CRI's data automatically render everything contained within false and inaccurate? I suggest you write CRI a letter seeking a retraction of their findings based on the Vanguard reprint, and then post their reply to this thread. Better yet, start a whole new thread, beginning with your Biblical defense of Hagee's policy of (non-)evangelizing the Jews. I also expect to read a vigorous defense from you that a broken clock can't be right at least twice a day.
I tell them the truth. What do you do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.