# Hanegraaff to Constantinople



## ZackF

I am sorry to see this as Hannegraaff, though he eschewed his father's Reformed tradition, held to the Solas of the Reformation.  May the Lord grant him repentance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Silas22

This breaks my heart. I too benefited from his ministry early on. If this turns out to be legit (and I don't see how it's not) his departure will be Rob Bell-esque in scope.


----------



## LilyG

Very sad.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jams White discussed it in his latest dividing line https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2017/0...allens-refutation-insightful-fb-conversation/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Is he really that big a deal, popularity wise? I never thought that he ranked near the Warrens, Lucado (just talking the numbers game), and the like.


----------



## Gforce9

ReformedReidian said:


> Is he really that big a deal, popularity wise? I never thought that he ranked near the Warrens, Lucado (just talking the numbers game), and the like.



While not as popular as the folks you mention, he is pretty popular in evangelicalism and respected as a "theologian" by many in the evangelical world. What complicates this whole matter is that most evangelicals will not see his "departure" as a departure, but rather just another acceptable, evangelical route.......

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Sad indeed that Hanegraff is now counted among those who have bowed the knee to Baal. While he may not be as big a name as some others, getting the "Bible Answer Man" to convert will no doubt be taken as a feather in the cap of Eastern Orthodoxy.


----------



## ZackF

Hanegraaff (I misspelled it in the title)


ReformedReidian said:


> Is he really that big a deal, popularity wise? I never thought that he ranked near the Warrens, Lucado (just talking the numbers game), and the like.



I think it is significant. Maybe his popularity has waned since the 90s/2000s. In years past he did a lot of helpful work against Word Faith wackos and other cults in general. Though not a professionally trained theologian he seemed to many, including me a Roman Catholic back then, to bring gravitas to conservative evangelicalism. His having a large family when seemingly few Protestants did moved up his stock price in my mind. He also had guests like Os Guinness, RC Sproul, James White and other thoughtful men that kept me from closing my mind to Protestantism. When podcasting came along I just chose to listen to stuff I liked more. This is sad to say the least. He's been on the air decades and sold numerous books. It is safe to say he's influenced millions. Many more people than Stellman.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reaganmarsh

Gforce9 said:


> While not as popular as the folks you mention, he is pretty popular in evangelicalism and respected as a "theologian" by many in the evangelical world. What complicates this whole matter is that most evangelicals will not see his "departure" as a departure, but rather just another acceptable, evangelical route.......



That's precisely where the rubber will meet the road in many churches today upon this news spreading. "If the Bible Answer Man did it, it _must_ be okay...maybe even wise!"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

reaganmarsh said:


> That's precisely where the rubber will meet the road in many churches today upon this news spreading. "If the Bible Answer Man did it, it _must_ be okay...maybe even wise!"



Precisely. He's not thought of as a heavyweight in Reformed circles but in the broader conservative evangelical world he is. This isn't good.


----------



## Taylor

I made an account on Wikipedia today for the sole purpose of editing the "Hank Hanegraaff" entry by taking "advocate of evangelical theology" out of the opening paragraph.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MW

Although the thing itself is not good, the mask coming off can be, especially if all that influence he used to have was secretly influencing people in the same direction he has been heading.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Herald

MW said:


> Although the thing itself is not good, the mask coming off can be, especially if all that influence he used to have was secretly influencing people in the same direction he has been heading.



Matthew, I concur. Better for apostasy to be exposed than for it to fester beneath the surface.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Looks like he has been attending the Orthodox church for a couple of years:

"Update 4/10/17: On his radio broadcast the day after his chrismation, Hank responded to a caller regarding his conversion. Basically he said that he has been attending an Orthodox church for over two years, based on an experience many years ago while in China, where he saw simple people living the Christian life in an enviable way. This led him to study Watchman Nee and what he wrote on the subject of _theosis_, which since then has deepened his love for Christ. And to prove he is still a Christian, he recited the entire Nicene Creed. Regarding his ministry he also said that he will continue to promote mere Christianity, based on this Creed, which is a principle ofC.S. Lewis Just as he always has."​
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/04/hank-hanegraaff-aka-bible-answer-man.html?m=1


----------



## SavedSinner

I think as reformed worship becomes more and more liturgical we will see a lot more of this. An office-bearer in my church recently fled from the Orthodox Presbyterian to the "Orthodox Church in America" or at least something Eastern Orthodox: orthodox to "orthodox"
Dave
PHX OPC


----------



## Beezer

Until this "news" broke, I had never heard of Mr. Hanegraaff so I have no idea what the larger impact/influence of his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) might be. That said, for the past several years I have taken an interest in learning more about church history and have read several EO books and interacted with a couple EO priests in my area who themselves are converts to EO via ROCOR and I can understand the unhealthy attraction to it. For those who are Reformed this unhealthy attraction only grows when you hear of other like-minded brothers and sisters who have crossed the Bosphorus. Fr. Josiah Trenham is one who comes to mind as one who has probably influenced more than a few people to make the swim.

I think the gravitational pull towards more liturgical styles of worship has been growing in Reformed circles, even if very slowly. I'm not sure what the impetus for this is, but I've seen a number of PCA churches move towards a liturgy that is closer to Canterbury than it is Geneva. The number of Reformed churches promoting Lent and Holy Week is also a further example of this trajectory. Why is this?

On a personal level, like others, I have known of people who have converted to EO or have at least contemplated it and the reasoning more often than not has been the desire to anchor themselves in what they perceive to be ancient/historic Christianity. This in part is a reaction I think to the continued splintering of denominations in the Protestant world and the secularization of churches in the West. Though the EO world is far from united and itself hides cracks visible beneath the surface, I think for some the lure is the mirage that EO represents something that is fixed, stable, and constant. I personally haven't met anyone who converted due to purely theological reasons though I'm sure those people are out there.

I look forward to hearing more about Mr. Hanegraaff's conversion, specifically the reasons behind it. Whether it be those who swim the Tiber, walk the Canterbury, or cross the Bosphorus, I think it would be good to understand the reasoning for these people leaving behind their Reformed faith, as I imagine the lure for some in our churches to do so will only increase in the future.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Often such conversions are in reaction to the shallow nature of much of modern evangelical worship. Unfortunately, all they are really doing in converting is exchanging modern ecclesiastical excess for ancient ecclesiastical excess.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## zsmcd

I only know of the man from one of his novels that he wrote, "The Last Disciple." It was a pretty good book that looked at Revelation from the partial-preterist perspective.


----------



## Dachaser

ZackF said:


> I am sorry to see this as Hannegraaff, though he eschewed his father's Reformed tradition, held to the Solas of the Reformation.  May the Lord grant him repentance.


He was very good for awhile, when he was addressing the Charasmatic Chaos such as in Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel, but then he started to slide off into Pretierism it seemed, and now going over to the EO.

They would be viewed in pretty much same light as the church of rome right? With another Gospel?


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> He was very good for awhile, when he was addressing the Charasmatic Chaos such as in Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel, but then he started to slide off into Pretierism it seemed, and now going over to the EO.
> 
> They would be viewed in pretty much same light as the church of rome right? With another Gospel?


Preterism isn't bad. Many on the board are Preterists.

There is a fair amount of arguments that can be used against the EO that are used against Rome. However, EO developed differently and they have different theology. Many times they believe that the west is too forensic and asking all the wrong questions.


----------



## RamistThomist

he probably watched the video of stormtroopers dancing in church, or the pastor bouncing on the couch and thought that was where evangelicalism was headed.
http://www.piratechristian.com/muse...al-proof-that-modern-churches-are-much-better


----------



## Silas22

ReformedReidian said:


> he probably watched the video of stormtroopers dancing in church, or the pastor bouncing on the couch and thought that was where evangelicalism was headed.
> http://www.piratechristian.com/muse...al-proof-that-modern-churches-are-much-better



I can't even. Excuse me while I go vomit.


----------



## Edward

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> he recited the entire Nicene Creed



If he included the filioque, he rejected EO theology the day after he embraced it. Which certainly wouldn't speak well of him. 

Well, maybe he was inspired by Franky Schaeffer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SRoper

Regarding liturgy, many who attend churches with dancing or even just a rock band regard a Genevan service as basically Roman Catholic.


----------



## SRoper

Edward said:


> If he included the filioque, he rejected EO theology the day after he embraced it. Which certainly wouldn't speak well of him.



The word "entire" jumped out at me, too.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Edward said:


> Well, maybe he was inspired by Franky Schaeffer.



I pray that he does not follow that trajectory. Often people are searching for something because the thing needed is something they simply do not possess.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SRoper

Bill The Baptist said:


> I pray that he does not follow that trajectory. Often people are searching for something because the thing needed is something they simply do not possess.



Excepting the case when you are looking for your glasses and they are on your head, the only time you search for something is when you don't have it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Preterism isn't bad. Many on the board are Preterists.
> 
> There is a fair amount of arguments that can be used against the EO that are used against Rome. However, EO developed differently and they have different theology. Many times they believe that the west is too forensic and asking all the wrong questions.


Hopefully not full pretierists, as that has never been allowed by the Confessing church, correct?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

Edward said:


> Well, maybe he was inspired by Franky Schaeffer.



I seriously doubt that. It would be hard to believe Hanegraaff knew nothing of Franky's implosion on many fronts.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

arapahoepark said:


> Preterism isn't bad. Many on the board are Preterists.



Indeed.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> Hopefully not full pretierists, as that has never been allowed by the Confessing church, correct?


Correct.
It is unfortunate that Preterists have to have another moniker attached to distance themselves from a fringe movement who have a dispensationalist mindset and refuse to see the Olivet discourse prophecy, or the first part of it anyway, as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem without Christ's having to come back at that time. It is equally unfortunate that 'Preterist' has to be used for that single prophecy because dispensationalist futurism has become the default mindset, even for many amills.


----------



## ZackF

Ephesians 2:8-10 is on the front page of equip.org tonight. Cognitive dissonance?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I have noticed an increase in conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy over the last several years, and I fear that Hanegraaf's conversion will only encourage others to follow suit. On the positive side, I have also seen an increase in evangelical and reformed engagement of EO as a result of this. There are a wealth of resources devoted to refuting Roman Catholicism, but we desperately need more resources to refute Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I pray that the departure of a relatively high profile name might motivate such works.


----------



## earl40

The meat of the matter is until the EO stop using words that can be misconstrued, one way or another, no amount of understanding can be conveyed in any book that will bring understanding. Speaking to any EO is like nailing jello to a wall most of the time, especially the serious ones.

Some examples include the below from Wiki on Theosis

"He was incarnate that we might be made god"
"A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man"

Overall this all comes down to how one reads 2 Peter 1:3-4 (below) which only comes from a Reformed perspective on ectypal and archetypal theology, and a proper view of the sacraments.

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> The meat of the matter is until the EO stop using words that can be misconstrued, one way or another, no amount of understanding can be conveyed in any book that will bring understanding. Speaking to any EO is like nailing jello to a wall most of the time, especially the serious ones.
> 
> Some examples include the below from Wiki on Theosis
> 
> "He was incarnate that we might be made god"
> "A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man"
> 
> Overall this all comes down to how one reads 2 Peter 1:3-4 (below) which only comes from a Reformed perspective on ectypal and archetypal theology, and a proper view of the sacraments.
> 
> 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
> 
> 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.



I've told some of my EO friends to be careful on how they gloss their terms. The fathers like Athanasios and Irenaeus were clear in that, while they would use "becoming god" language, they said that we didn't alter our natures in doing so.

Is that ultimately coherent? I don't know, but it's a far different claim that what Shirley Mclain makes or what the Mormons make when they say I will become a god and populate a planet with my wives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Correct.
> It is unfortunate that Preterists have to have another moniker attached to distance themselves from a fringe movement who have a dispensationalist mindset and refuse to see the Olivet discourse prophecy, or the first part of it anyway, as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem without Christ's having to come back at that time. It is equally unfortunate that 'Preterist' has to be used for that single prophecy because dispensationalist futurism has become the default mindset, even for many amills.


Full Pretierists would hold that the Second Coming happened in AD 70, so would deny the future coming, and that is what makes them holding to heretical views, correct? And like your Dr, was he your favorite one?


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> I've told some of my EO friends to be careful on how they gloss their terms. The fathers like Athanasios and Irenaeus were clear in that, while they would use "becoming god" language, they said that we didn't alter our natures in doing so.
> 
> Is that ultimately coherent? I don't know, but it's a far different claim that what Shirley Mclain makes or what the Mormons make when they say I will become a god and populate a planet with my wives.



Coherent In my most humble opinion no. I say this because when I speak to the serious EO they usually qualify the terms in a positive sense as taking on the divine nature. They (EO) also do it in the negative sense, unlike Shirley and the Mormons who are at least consistent in the words they use.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> Full Pretierists would hold that the Second Coming happened in AD 70, so would deny the future coming, and that is what makes them holding to heretical views, correct?


That alone makes them heretical yes. A lot tend to hold to other wacky views that came about due to holding that.


> And like your Dr, was he your favorite one?


I do not follow....


----------



## LilyG

Bill The Baptist said:


> ...There are a wealth of resources devoted to refuting Roman Catholicism, but we desperately need more resources to refute Eastern Orthodoxy as well.



Yes we do!

So... are the most fundamental issues (that give way to other issues) a rejection of all five solas? Or some of them? Amd then obviously, an elevation of tradition?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

LilyG said:


> Yes we do!
> 
> So... are the most fundamental issues (that give way to other issues) a rejection of all five solas? Or some of them? Amd then obviously, an elevation of tradition?



With EO, you have pretty much all the issues of Catholicism, plus a deficient view of man, sin, and sanctification.


----------



## Hamalas

Bill The Baptist said:


> With EO, you have pretty much all the issues of Catholicism, plus a deficient view of man, sin, and sanctification.




This isn’t quite true.

Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Rome on several important points. Obviously the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed was a key point of division during the Schism in 1054. In addition to that the EO church rejects the Papacy (including papal infallibility), purgatory, and does not forbid its priests to marry. It is also much more “fuzzy” than Rome on certain key points. This is both a strength and a weakness. It can be a strength in that the EO church hasn’t developed the same decided commitment to certain unbiblical teachings in the same way that Rome has but it’s a definite weakness in that there are essential Christian doctrines (particularly in relation to soteriology) in which EO teaching muddies the water rather than offering clarity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Dr. James White's response and comments on this situation:


----------



## RamistThomist

LilyG said:


> Yes we do!
> 
> So... are the most fundamental issues (that give way to other issues) a rejection of all five solas? Or some of them? Amd then obviously, an elevation of tradition?



Yes, but it is more complex than that. It's also how those terms are used (e.g., is grace a quasi-substance like in Catholicism or is it the divine energies or something else?)

Their view of tradition is different from Rome, but that is about as simple as I can make it. Rome, depending on how you interpret Tridentine documents, posits Scripture AND Tradition as co-equal authorities.

EO comes something like TRADITION = Scripture + Conciliar decrees + other stuff, and there is sort of an informal hierarchy of weight. Obviously, the gospel of John is given more authority than the sayings of Barsanuphius.

Some of my EO friends like to say it comes down to how you view the Trinity and Christology. Unpacking that, though, is a tall order.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Hamalas said:


> This isn’t quite true.
> 
> Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Rome on several important points. Obviously the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed was a key point of division during the Schism in 1054. In addition to that the EO church rejects the Papacy (including papal infallibility), purgatory, and does not forbid its priests to marry. It is also much more “fuzzy” than Rome on certain key points. This is both a strength and a weakness. It can be a strength in that the EO church hasn’t developed the same decided commitment to certain unbiblical teachings in the same way that Rome has but it’s a definite weakness in that there are essential Christian doctrines (particularly in relation to soteriology) in which EO teaching muddies the water rather than offering clarity.



Yes thank you for clarifying this. There are indeed many differences, some significant and some merely semantic, but as a whole they affirm the same main errors of idolatry, prayers for the dead, veneration of saints, and works based salvation. In addition, they deny the depravity of man and penal substitutionary atonement.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> That alone makes them heretical yes. A lot tend to hold to other wacky views that came about due to holding that.
> 
> I do not follow....


It looks like the matt Smith Dr Who is in your picture image....


----------



## TheOldCourse

Hamalas said:


> This isn’t quite true.
> 
> Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Rome on several important points. Obviously the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed was a key point of division during the Schism in 1054. In addition to that the EO church rejects the Papacy (including papal infallibility), purgatory, and does not forbid its priests to marry. It is also much more “fuzzy” than Rome on certain key points. This is both a strength and a weakness. It can be a strength in that the EO church hasn’t developed the same decided commitment to certain unbiblical teachings in the same way that Rome has but it’s a definite weakness in that there are essential Christian doctrines (particularly in relation to soteriology) in which EO teaching muddies the water rather than offering clarity.



Maybe I'm off base since I haven't ran into any EO theological heavyweights personally, but in my interactions with run-of-the-mill EO they seem a lot like a RC church that never had Trent. Obviously authority structures are different, but while it is home to a great deal of what we would see as aberrant theology, very little of it is standardized as official dogma of the church. In many areas someone holding Protestant theology could exist within the church. Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to authority and worship, but in other areas of theology it becomes an easier transition for an evangelical because they've never codified their anathemas like Rome did at Trent. The emphasis is more on means of piety and devotion (again, deficient ones from our perspective) than theological polemics.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

TheOldCourse said:


> Maybe I'm off base since I haven't ran into any EO theological heavyweights personally, but in my interactions with run-of-the-mill EO they seem a lot like a RC church that never had Trent. Obviously authority structures are different, but while it is home to a great deal of what we would see as aberrant theology, very little of it is standardized as official dogma of the church. In many areas someone holding Protestant theology could exist within the church. Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to authority and worship, but in other areas of theology it becomes an easier transition for an evangelical because they've never codified their anathemas like Rome did at Trent. The emphasis is more on means of piety and devotion (again, deficient ones from our perspective) than theological polemics.



This is true in a sense, but make no mistake, they believe they are the one true church and that there is no salvation apart from the church.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Bill The Baptist said:


> This is true in a sense, but make no mistake, they believe they are the one true church and that there is no salvation apart from the church.



I'm not meaning to minimize their errors, just pointing out that in the comparisons between them and Rome, Trent was a watershed moment for Rome that fundamentally impacted the trajectory of the church and EO doesn't have anything, to my knowledge, analogous. Rome was the seat of the antichrist and an incubator of heresy from before Trent, but it was also somewhere where a remnant of Augustinians and others of like mind could still profess the gospel even if not in as clear and consistent terms as was done in the Reformation. EO seems to be at a similar place to me right now. A huge difference, of course, would be the public existence of more pure churches in the West today, but that's not always true in the East.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

It is an interesting case, how a man like HH can go EO. I do not deny that there are some EO who are born again, but to go from a sound faith to that? Which makes one wonder if HH’s faith was sound from the start, despite his extensive knowledge. I’ve seen others, some learnèd, who, after an extended period of “dryness”, seek something more “experiential” sense-wise—which would include psychic experience of some sort.

In an online article on HH I came across earlier, he is reported to have said, after visiting some Christians in China,

_I was comparing my ability to communicate truth with their deep and abiding love for the Lord Jesus Christ… One man, by the way, said to me, truth matters but life matters more. In other words, it is not just knowing about Jesus Christ, it is experiencing the Resurrected Christ. As a result of that I started studying what was communicated by the progeny of Watchman Nee with respect to theosis and that drove me back to the early Christian Church._​
I myself was deeply taken with Watchman Nee some 40 years ago or so (and had a great number of his books, also attending a church in Queens NY where many who knew him had migrated to), and there is some very spiritually unhealthy stuff in him, though a site I visited today showed even greater trouble with Nee. So if it was Nee who turned him to that version of theosis / deification that to some extent explains his defection from the Biblical Gospel.

When there is a spiritual vacuum in the heart, the heart needs something of substance to fill and comfort it, even if it be not Jesus Christ by His Spirit and word—and false religion often suffices. I think there are many professing believers in churches who do not have the root of the matter in them, and if sitting under a sound and vital Gospel ministry does not convert them, they might instead fall for something exciting to them but unsound.

Could be this is what happened with HH.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

And I should also add that, as one EO poet has put it, Evangelical Christianity often serves "the thinnest of soups". There are many, many churches who preach a vapid gospel, if such can be called the gospel at all. No wonder some search in other places, perhaps having had their minds poisoned against Reformed doctrine, and so excluding oases where the water of life runs freely.


----------



## RamistThomist

I spent about 8 years interacting with EO. 4 of those years were extremely sympathetic and the following four were extremely critical. I'm reminded of something Kim Riddlebarger said in his talks on Amillennialism: just trading bible verses with them won't get to the deep issues. So, here is a rough, quasi-biographical annotated bibliography that gives you the goods on EO. Some sources are Evangelical, some not.

Clendennin, Daniel. _Introducing Eastern Orthodoxy_. (Evangelical). Does a mostly fantastic job summarizing the issues, though he avoids topics like the Filioque.

Clendenin, Daniel. _Eastern Orthodoxy Reader_ (Evangelical). A collection of essays from both Orthodox and Evangelical theologians.

Lossky, Vladimir. _In the Image and Likeness of God_. His most important essay is on the Filioque. If you can get a handle on that then you got the general idea of Orthodox metaphysics. My problem with Lossky is he oversimplifies some of the Patristics sources.

Letham, Robert. _Through Western Eyes_. (Reformed). Fairly good. I disagree with some of his conclusions and I don't think he pursued the anthropological claims as far as they could go. He also relies on de Regnon's scholarship, which has come under serious criticism.

Ware, Timothy. _The Orthodox Church _(Orthodox). Wonderfully well-written and thorough. This is the most read book in American Orthodoxy. If your friend converted, then I bet you he read and reread this book. If you want to know what "makes him tick," this book is probably your answer.

Letham, Robert. _Union with Christ_. Good because he rebuts Horton's claim that the West can appropriate the Essence/energies distinction.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## Herald

I can't help but think of 1 Peter 2:10, in which the Apostle writes, "make every effort to confirm your calling and election." It's one thing for a neophyte to stray into error. It's quite another for a celebrated teacher of the truth to embrace error, and encourage others to do the same. As brother Steve Rafalsky pointed out, there is a not-so-latent dissatisfaction in broad evangelicalism's shallowness. While that is not a valid excuse for Christians to willingly choose error, broad evangelicalism is not without culpability.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> It looks like the matt Smith Dr Who is in your picture image....


Hopefully not derailing the thread but, to answer your question, yes...back and forth between him and Tennant.


----------



## ZackF

Herald said:


> I can't help but think of 1 Peter 2:10, in which the Apostle writes, "make every effort to confirm your calling and election." It's one thing for a neophyte to stray into error. It's quite another for a celebrated teacher of the truth to embrace error, and encourage others to do the same. As brother Steve Rafalsky pointed out, there is a not-so-latent dissatisfaction in broad evangelicalism's shallowness. While that is not a valid excuse for Christians to willingly choose error, broad evangelicalism is not without culpability.



HH is aware unshallow of Protestantism. He came from it himself and rubbed elbows with many reformed since.


----------



## RamistThomist

One other bibliographical detail:

A lot of Orthodox converts will recommend the late Peter Gilquist's _Becoming Orthodox_. It's okay. I don't think it is as good as they say it is. It's mostly surface-level stuff, though a few sections were helpful.

However, it does a great job describing his trying to bring his "whatever group he had" into Orthodoxy. The last few chapters read like a Middle Eastern spy thriller. He was received into the Antiochian Patriarchate after the Greeks said no. That's an important point, as it explains why the Ecumenical Patriarchate is hemmoraging members.


----------



## arapahoepark

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/04/the-greek-orthodox-answer-man.php
If I recall correctly Drake Shelton had some good thoughts on EO but, I think his sites are largely shut down since he went off the deep end.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

arapahoepark said:


> http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/04/the-greek-orthodox-answer-man.php
> If I recall correctly Drake Shelton had some good thoughts on EO but, I think his sites are largely shut down since he went off the deep end.



Who is Drake Shelton?


----------



## Herald

In my humble opinion the lure to Eastern/Greek Orthodox is a mistaken sort of _ad fontes_; as though there's a sort of purity that has been lost since the patristic age. The ironic thing is that the patristic age was full of mixture and error. That doesn't mean it was a time devoid of value to the Church. It's just that old doesn't always mean accurate. Rome is proof of that.

There's also a more subtle and troubling part of Hanegraaff's Bible Answer Man ministry. It shared a commonality with the late Harold Camping's Family Forum call in show. Folks would call in asking questions that they could easily answer for themselves if they were students of the Word. The best teachers are the one's who make you work to find the answer, instead of just telling you the answer. Unfortunately, we like our theology just like our food...fast!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Who is Drake Shelton?



We're not really allowed to talk about him, but he was a Covenanter who then rejected the Filioque, then rejected the EO church (but said they were right on the Filioque), then became Hebrew roots/Natsarim, then got mad at them. No idea what he is now.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

ReformedReidian said:


> We're not really allowed to talk about him, but he was a Covenanter who then rejected the Filioque, then rejected the EO church (but said they were right on the Filioque), then became Hebrew roots/Natsarim, then got mad at them. No idea what he is now.



Why are we not allowed to talk about him?


----------



## RamistThomist

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Why are we not allowed to talk about him?



Because he apostasized. Someone started a thread some time back asking for responses to Drake's views. And then we sort of got the vibe we shouldn't talk about him.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ReformedReidian said:


> Because he apostasized. Someone started a thread some time back asking for responses to Drake's views. And then we sort of got the vibe we shouldn't talk about him.



*Mod note:*
From personal experience as well as at this site, the man in question is a contentious heretic and discussions related to him usually end up becoming scandalous fodder elsewhere. Invariably links are posted in discussions about him that lead others to Wonderland and a very deep rabbit hole. Let's not foul up the site with the man and his many oddities.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark

More James White on it
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2017/04/13/can-consistent-eastern-orthodox-believer-bible-answer-man/


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *Mod note:*
> From personal experience as well as at this site, the man in question is a contentious heretic and discussions related to him usually end up becoming scandalous fodder elsewhere. Invariably links are posted in discussions about him that lead others to Wonderland and a very deep rabbit hole. Let's not foul up the site with the man and his many oddities.



I agree, which is why I didn't post anything and didn't really expound upon what he believes (partly because I can't keep up with how fast he changes it)


----------



## arapahoepark

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *Mod note:*
> From personal experience as well as at this site, the man in question is a contentious heretic and discussions related to him usually end up becoming scandalous fodder elsewhere. Invariably links are posted in discussions about him that lead others to Wonderland and a very deep rabbit hole. Let's not foul up the site with the man and his many oddities.


I apologize. Before he went nuts I thought he had some good arguments against EO but that still may be on there that were untainted of his newer stuff.


----------



## RamistThomist

Back to the OP, an EO apologist, an acquaintance of mine, gave some background on what Hanegraff's move to EO might mean. 
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017...howComment=1491938177776#c2956304261910927135

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

One of the (sadly, unsurprising) things that I have noticed on FB, Twitter, etc... is a hardcore defense of HH, a total ignorance of EO, and saying things like "You can be EO and hold to Sola Fide", etc... 

Which shows that they have no idea what Sola Fide means, and frankly don't seem to care. 

Just more examples of the complete insanity that is modern evangelicalism, its gross anti-intellectualism, and love of popular men regardless of their moral failures and heretical examples.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ReformedReidian said:


> Back to the OP, an EO apologist, an acquaintance of mine, gave some background on what Hanegraff's move to EO might mean.
> http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017...howComment=1491938177776#c2956304261910927135


The fluidity of EO doctrine is made evident in the comments to this item at the link above. Much like Romanism, it is often like nailing jello to the wall when discussing doctrine with EO proponents. Sigh.


----------



## ZackF

ReformedReidian said:


> Back to the OP, an EO apologist, an acquaintance of mine, gave some background on what Hanegraff's move to EO might mean.
> http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017...howComment=1491938177776#c2956304261910927135



I saw that a few days ago and considered linking to it but seemed a little personal. Hanegraaff had been attending an EO church for two years. If HH is trying to avoid accountability this path is certainly risky and a round about way to say the least.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The fluidity of EO doctrine is made evident in the comments to this item at the link above. Much like Romanism, it is often like nailing jello to the wall when discussing doctrine with EO proponents. Sigh.



I've debated enough of them that I know what are some bad "opening moves" (on either side). And for full disclosure: I actually love 99.99% of my EO friends. They are some of my best facebook friends (if that's actually a real category).

1. Try to be clear on what Sola Script. is and isn't. It is not the proposition that the Bible alone is our sole authority. It means simply that the Bible is our final authority (it is our norming norm). 

2. Get them to be clear on the Consensus of the Fathers. What is a Father? We usually define it as a theologian who lived from 100 to 500 (though I would extend it to Photios). They will say that the age of the Fathers has not ended but continues today. So when they tell you, "Go read the Fathers," and you reply, "I've read probably 10,000 pages of the early church guys," they will then say, "But you haven't read all the fathers, since that continues today." Shrug your shoulders at that point.

3. Don't let them claim the Vincentian Canon on you. It proves very little.

That's usually the most basic lines in debate. From there it gets harder:

4. Don't flinch when they throw the 40,000 denominations card at you. It's a smoke screen. Even if true it doesn't negate one's position, and even terms like unity aren't self-evident.

5. Be ready to defend post-Augustinian versions of divine simplicity. Hodge and Dabney are good on this point. Most debates don't include the Filioque, since that involves metaphysics and nobody, Protestant or Orthodox, really wants to talk about it. But sometimes it happens.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## RamistThomist

ZackF said:


> I saw that a few days ago and considered linking to it but seemed a little personal. Hanegraaff had been attending an EO church for two years. If HH is trying to avoid accountability this path is certainly risky and a round about way to say the least.



Perry quoted it on Steve Hays blog, so it's public knowledge now. Perry doesn't blog anymore. He is probably the toughest EO guy to debate, but he doesn't debate anymore. Perry has helped me on the fathers and on some philosophical issues. 

I do wonder if HH will get his own spot on Ancient Faith Radio. I hope not, for everyone's sake. American Orthodox are particularly bad about celebrating the latest big-name convert. Orthodox Bridge is the worst. It's not quite as bad as the "Rome, Sweet Home" types, but it's close.


----------



## Silas22

Bill The Baptist said:


> Often such conversions are in reaction to the shallow nature of much of modern evangelical worship. Unfortunately, all they are really doing in converting is exchanging modern ecclesiastical excess for ancient ecclesiastical excess.





Bill The Baptist said:


> I pray that he does not follow that trajectory. Often people are searching for something because the thing needed is something they simply do not possess.



Bill, you knocked it out of the park. A former friend of mine has been following this same trajectory for some time now, and I've come to realize that he simply does not possess faith.

What makes people like this particularly dangerous is that they do not even recognize their lack of faith or they simply refuse to come to terms with their lack of faith. They live in denial and often cherish doubt as if it were faith. Their constant need for change, which they would chalk up to theological evolution or progressivism, is simply a smokescreen.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> I've debated enough of them that I know what are some bad "opening moves" (on either side). And for full disclosure: I actually love 99.99% of my EO friends. They are some of my best facebook friends (if that's actually a real category).
> 
> 1. Try to be clear on what Sola Script. is and isn't. It is not the proposition that the Bible alone is our sole authority. It means simply that the Bible is our final authority (it is our norming norm).
> 
> 2. Get them to be clear on the Consensus of the Fathers. What is a Father? We usually define it as a theologian who lived from 100 to 500 (though I would extend it to Photios). They will say that the age of the Fathers has not ended but continues today. So when they tell you, "Go read the Fathers," and you reply, "I've read probably 10,000 pages of the early church guys," they will then say, "But you haven't read all the fathers, since that continues today." Shrug your shoulders at that point.
> 
> 3. Don't let them claim the Vincentian Canon on you. It proves very little.
> 
> That's usually the most basic lines in debate. From there it gets harder:
> 
> 4. Don't flinch when they throw the 40,000 denominations card at you. It's a smoke screen. Even if true it doesn't negate one's position, and even terms like unity aren't self-evident.
> 
> 5. Be ready to defend post-Augustinian versions of divine simplicity. Hodge and Dabney are good on this point. Most debates don't include the Filioque, since that involves metaphysics and nobody, Protestant or Orthodox, really wants to talk about it. But sometimes it happens.


Would the same basic arguments used to refute the Church of Rome be useful against them in discussions of theology then?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Would the same basic arguments used to refute the Church of Rome be useful against them in discussions of theology then?



No. They don't hold to the same church government. In fact, some of their anti-papal apologetics is quite good. And they don't hold to Purgatory (in fact, read up on the debates between Mark of Ephesus vs the Papal Legates)

On the surface level, as I noted in (1)-(3), a lot of stuff is similar. But that's not getting to the heart of the issues.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> No. They don't hold to the same church government. In fact, some of their anti-papal apologetics is quite good. And they don't hold to Purgatory (in fact, read up on the debates between Mark of Ephesus vs the Papal Legates)
> 
> On the surface level, as I noted in (1)-(3), a lot of stuff is similar. But that's not getting to the heart of the issues.



They don't hold to purgatory in the Catholic sense, but some EO do believe in celestial toll houses that we must pass through on the way to heaven.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> They don't hold to purgatory in the Catholic sense, but some EO do believe in celestial toll houses that we must pass through on the way to heaven.



That's a fun question to ask them. No council ever ruled on it (to my knowledge) and most of the "patristic" evidence is from later Russian fathers. True, the Alexandria school did have some interesting views on life after death, but it wasn't really toll-houses.

The more politically-correct GOARCH types reject toll-houses. Most Russians accept them.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> That's a fun question to ask them. No council ever ruled on it (to my knowledge) and most of the "patristic" evidence is from later Russian fathers. True, the Alexandria school did have some interesting views on life after death, but it wasn't really toll-houses.
> 
> The more politically-correct GOARCH types reject toll-houses. Most Russians accept them.



I asked one once if they had to bake cookies in these toll houses. He didn't get the joke.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> No. They don't hold to the same church government. In fact, some of their anti-papal apologetics is quite good. And they don't hold to Purgatory (in fact, read up on the debates between Mark of Ephesus vs the Papal Legates)
> 
> On the surface level, as I noted in (1)-(3), a lot of stuff is similar. But that's not getting to the heart of the issues.


They do also have extra biblical non canon books they refer to as scripture, and would see salvation in the sense of faith and good works though, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They do also have extra biblical non canon books they refer to as scripture, and would see salvation in the sense of faith and good works though, correct?



Yes, but they gloss them differently than Rome. Don't get me wrong, a strong handle on justification will serve you well in these talks, but a powerful refutation of congruent/condign merit, for example, might not phase EO all that much.


----------



## ZackF

ReformedReidian said:


> Yes, but they gloss them differently than Rome. Don't get me wrong, a strong handle on justification will serve you well in these talks, but a powerful refutation of congruent/condign merit, for example, might not phase EO all that much.



Theosis is kind of a black box, basket or blob that they put their salvation eggs into.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Yes, but they gloss them differently than Rome. Don't get me wrong, a strong handle on justification will serve you well in these talks, but a powerful refutation of congruent/condign merit, for example, might not phase EO all that much.


What would they see as a sinner needing to do to pass over from spiritual death unto spiritual life?


----------



## Dachaser

ZackF said:


> Theosis is kind of a black box, basket or blob that they put their salvation eggs into.


Is that not similar though to Mormons believing that we can become gods, or same as in Word of faith movement would hold to?


----------



## ZackF

Dachaser said:


> Is that not similar though to Mormons believing that we can become gods, or same as in Word of faith movement would hold to?



Only superficially are they similar. EO are fully Trinitarian with a solid Christology. Mormonism isn't even in the ball park.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ZackF said:


> EO are fully Trinitarian with a solid Christology.


_Filioque_, notwithstanding, of course. 

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-is-Jesus-titled-the-son-of-god.91112/#post-1116522


----------



## ZackF

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> _Filioque_, notwithstanding, of course.
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/why-is-Jesus-titled-the-son-of-god.91112/#post-1116522



I didn't say anything about Pneumatology!


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Is that not similar though to Mormons believing that we can become gods, or same as in Word of faith movement would hold to?



No, because on EO gloss you never cease to be human. The best thing to do around these questions is to 
1) Pick up Timothy Ware's _The Orthodox Church_
2) Read _Three Views on Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy_.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> What would they see as a sinner needing to do to pass over from spiritual death unto spiritual life?


Baptism begins the process


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ZackF said:


> I didn't say anything about Pneumatology!


No you did not. But the matter at hand is part and parcel a topic of Trinitarianism.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Baptism begins the process



They would hold to infant regeneration like the Church of Rome does then?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They would hold to infant regeneration like the Church of Rome does then?



Sort of. Rome says baptism washes away the stain of original sin. Orthodoxy doesn't.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Sort of. Rome says baptism washes away the stain of original sin. Orthodoxy doesn't.


They would not agree than with us that God declares us to be just due to the Cross, but that we actually have to get transformed enough to merit salvation in some sense?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They would not agree than with us that God declares us to be just due to the Cross, but that we actually have to get transformed enough to merit salvation in some sense?



They wouldn't use the phrase "merit," but correct, they would reject imputation-language. They would say something like "we are in God's image but we must--through various means of ascesis--become his likeness." It's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.

They would say we are transformed, but this isn't "merit" language, since God doesn't owe us anything.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> They wouldn't use the phrase "merit," but correct, they would reject imputation-language. They would say something like "we are in God's image but we must--through various means of ascesis--become his likeness." It's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.
> 
> They would say we are transformed, but this isn't "merit" language, since God doesn't owe us anything.


So they would focus in on Jesus as being the prime example of how we as humans could elevate ourselves morally to be more like God?
Where is the majority of their theology taken from, as it does not seem to be in the Bible itself?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So they would focus in on Jesus as being the prime example of how we as humans could elevate ourselves morally to be more like God?



No. They would say we are deified by the divine energies, something Moral Example theories reject.



> Where is the majority of their theology taken from, as it does not seem to be in the Bible itself?



No one reads the Bible in a vacuum. But to kind of answer your question, Greek metaphysics (however one wants to gloss that phrase) does form a background.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> No. They would say we are deified by the divine energies, something Moral Example theories reject.
> 
> 
> 
> No one reads the Bible in a vacuum. But to kind of answer your question, Greek metaphysics (however one wants to gloss that phrase) does form a background.


They would take it to be then that once glorified, will become as it were gods then?
And their Greek metaphysics is not drawn from theology as we would tend to see it, but more from insights and mysticism?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They would take it to be then that once glorified, will become as it were gods then?



Depends on what you mean by 'gods." They aren't saying we become clones of Mormon Jesus. On their gloss we never lose our human properties.



> And their Greek metaphysics is not drawn from theology as we would tend to see it, but more from insights and mysticism?



They would respond that the Bible isn't a mixture of Thomism and Scotism, either.

As for drawing more from "insights," I don't know what that means exactly. I hope we all have insights into Scripture.


----------



## Hamalas

Jacob, as a broad generalization would it be fair to characterize the difference between RC and EO views of salvation in these terms?

1. RC collapses the categories of justification into sanctification
2. EO collapses the categories of justification into glorification


----------



## RamistThomist

Hamalas said:


> Jacob, as a broad generalization would it be fair to characterize the difference between RC and EO views of salvation in these terms?
> 
> 1. RC collapses the categories of justification into sanctification
> 2. EO collapses the categories of justification into glorification



That's an interesting way of putting it. From what I've gathered is that EO confuse justification and salvation. Or rather, they think we conflate the two, which is why they get angry when they hear faith alone. They think that we think that all salvation is is making a decision for Jesus (which to be fair, that does nail a good bit of Evangelicalism).


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Depends on what you mean by 'gods." They aren't saying we become clones of Mormon Jesus. On their gloss we never lose our human properties.
> 
> 
> 
> They would respond that the Bible isn't a mixture of Thomism and Scotism, either.
> 
> As for drawing more from "insights," I don't know what that means exactly. I hope we all have insights into Scripture.





ReformedReidian said:


> That's an interesting way of putting it. From what I've gathered is that EO confuse justification and salvation. Or rather, they think we conflate the two, which is why they get angry when they hear faith alone. They think that we think that all salvation is is making a decision for Jesus (which to be fair, that does nail a good bit of Evangelicalism).


This deification of humanity is where they miss the mark for me, as what is that all about then?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> This deification of humanity is where they miss the mark for me, as what is that all about then?



They don't mean deified in the sense that humanity loses its human properties and becomes a divine exemplar. Rather, it is something like the human unlocks new capacities (I am using modern, technological lingo. None of the fathers talked like this). 

They would hinge on verses like 2 Peter 1:4


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> This deification of humanity is where they miss the mark for me, as what is that all about then?



This article, well, it's the first fifty pages to a book on the subject, does a great job explaining what they are getting at.
http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5224V.pdf


----------



## Pilgrim

ReformedReidian said:


> Is he really that big a deal, popularity wise? I never thought that he ranked near the Warrens, Lucado (just talking the numbers game), and the like.



He was never that popular. Few are. (For example, has Chuck Swindoll sold more books than Warren?)

And the height of Hanegraaf's popularity as an author was probably 15-20 years ago with his books against charismania, etc. But nonetheless I'm not sure I can think of a more popular evangelical convert to EO offhand given his radio program and his carrying on the legacy of Walter Martin (however controversial that may have been with members of Martin's family, etc.)

I could be forgetting some folks, but the other somewhat prominent converts to EO from evangelicalism who I can think of have been academics or journalists who were never bestselling authors and popular radio hosts. (I don't know how many books Hanegraaf has sold, but a couple of his books seemed to be everywhere in the late 90s.)

I do think it may be bigger than Franky Schaeffer, who was never really much more than an angry young man who only came to prominence due to who his father was. And I think he had more or less dropped off the radar as an author and filmmaker by the time he went EO.

EDIT: If half of what the commenter on Triablogue says is true, then it might not come to much unless some EOs really try to prop him up. I remember hearing some of that years ago but I had forgotten about it. It may have been in some article about the scandal of ghostwriting in evangelical publishing.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> He was never that popular. Few are. (For example, has Chuck Swindoll sold more books than Warren?)
> 
> And the height of Hanegraaf's popularity as an author was probably 15-20 years ago with his books against charismania, etc. But nonetheless I'm not sure I can think of a more popular evangelical convert to EO offhand given his radio program and his carrying on the legacy of Walter Martin (however controversial that may have been with members of Martin's family, etc.)
> 
> I could be forgetting some folks, but the other somewhat prominent converts to EO from evangelicalism who I can think of have been academics or journalists who were never bestselling authors and popular radio hosts. (I don't know how many books Hanegraaf has sold, but a couple of his books seemed to be everywhere in the late 90s.)
> 
> I do think it may be bigger than Franky Schaeffer, who was never really much more than an angry young man who only came to prominence due to who his father was. And I think he had more or less dropped off the radar as an author and filmmaker by the time he went EO.
> 
> EDIT: If half of what the commenter on Triablogue says is true, then it might not come to much unless some EOs really try to prop him up. I remember hearing some of that years ago but I had forgotten about it. It may have been in some article about the scandal of ghostwriting in evangelical publishing.



Makes sense. Some EOs--the Ancient Faith Radio types--will see him as the next big thing.

I also wonder if James White is trying to pick up Hank's former audience.


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> They don't mean deified in the sense that humanity loses its human properties and becomes a divine exemplar. Rather, it is something like the human unlocks new capacities (I am using modern, technological lingo. None of the fathers talked like this).
> 
> They would hinge on verses like 2 Peter 1:4



Sounds like a deficient view of what archetype theology is, and an exalted view of what ectypal theology is.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I have found that the EO are just really imprecise when it comes to theological terms. I have read a lot of Anselm and he is often helpful in explaining what the Orthodox mean when using certain terms.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> Sounds like a deficient view of what archetype theology is, and an exalted view of what ectypal theology is.



They would hold to archetypal theology. Even Palamas, like most fathers and medievals, said God's essence is unknowable. I don't think they have an exalted view of ectypal theology, since they usually say "it's a mystery."


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> I have found that the EO are just really imprecise when it comes to theological terms. I have read a lot of Anselm and he is often helpful in explaining what the Orthodox mean when using certain terms.



That used to be the case. Most of hte noise today from the EO camp is coming from convertskii today, and they are a bit more precise. 

While I am an Anselmian, I wonder if Anselm is the best take on this topic. His first hand acquaintance with Greek sources would have been limited.
https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Byzan...492704218&sr=8-1&keywords=crisis+in+byzantium


----------



## Pilgrim

ReformedReidian said:


> Makes sense. Some EOs--the Ancient Faith Radio types--will see him as the next big thing.



Your EO friend who posted on Triablogue seemed to think that is a possibility. My guess is that some of the Ancient Faith type folks may also be more ignorant of evangelicalism than the Called to Communion or even Catholic Answers type of RC converts from Protestantism.

Some insinuate that it is sort of mean and ridiculous for Bott Radio Network to drop Hanegraaf. Would they think it is mean and ridiculous if Ancient Faith Radio (or a Roman Catholic station) dropped a host who went evangelical?



> I also wonder if James White is trying to pick up Hank's former audience.



I'm sure he'd love to have them.

I wonder if Hanegraaf's program was on more stations out West or in the Midwest or something. I'm not sure if I've ever heard him on the radio in the South or at least not in Louisiana. Maybe that's because so many of the stations have the likes of Kenneth Hagin and Charles Capps instead. EDIT: Or maybe the thing is that Bott Radio Network is mainly found in other parts of the country. I don't think I'd ever heard of it until I got a smartphone and saw their app. Most of the network programming on Christian radio stations down here is from Moody.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> Your EO friend who posted on Triablogue seemed to think that is a possibility. My guess is that some of the Ancient Faith type folks may also be more ignorant of evangelicalism than the Called to Communion or even Catholic Answers type of RC converts from Protestantism.
> 
> What is really revelatory is the amount of PCA types (many apparently connected somehow to Covenant Seminary or of the "National Partnership mindset" regardless) who think that this isn't apostasy from the gospel. They think that it is "tribalism" and some kind of idiotic fundamentalism to think that it might be. So I guess that men like Sproul are just ignorant Bible thumping fundys. Either that, or they don't know what he teaches even if they cite him as being some sort of influence.
> 
> (I once sat in a PCA ordination examination of a Covenant seminary graduate. Among other disagreements with the Westminster Standards, he took exception to the prohibition of church members marrying Romanists.)
> 
> And some insinuate that it is sort of mean and ridiculous for Bott Radio Network to drop Hanegraaf. Would they think it is mean and ridiculous if Ancient Faith Radio (or a Roman Catholic station) dropped a host who went evangelical?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he'd love to have them.
> 
> I wonder if Hanegraaf's program was on more stations out West or in the Midwest or something. I'm not sure if I've ever heard him on the radio in the South or at least not in Louisiana. Maybe that's because so many of the stations have the likes of Kenneth Hagin and Charles Capps instead.



With streaming audio, who needs fixed station broadcast frequencies? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Pilgrim

Herald said:


> With streaming audio, who needs fixed station broadcast frequencies?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



He was around way before that technology was available. 

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but rarely have I sought out something on streaming audio that I wasn't already familiar with otherwise. The main exception is probably Sermon Audio, along with some business related things on YouTube. But a lot of younger people probably think that Sermon Audio is for older fundy types anyway.


----------



## KMK

Bill The Baptist said:


> I have found that the EO are just really imprecise when it comes to theological terms. I have read a lot of Anselm and he is often helpful in explaining what the Orthodox mean when using certain terms.



It's hard to spend a lot of time developing precise language when you are busy for centuries fighting the Muslims.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

This, outlining the distinctions and claims of EO, is a worthwhile read from a URCNA pastor:

http://www.christurc.org/blog/2016/...tian-church-the-allure-of-eastern-orthodoxy-1


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> He was never that popular. Few are. (For example, has Chuck Swindoll sold more books than Warren?)
> 
> And the height of Hanegraaf's popularity as an author was probably 15-20 years ago with his books against charismania, etc. But nonetheless I'm not sure I can think of a more popular evangelical convert to EO offhand given his radio program and his carrying on the legacy of Walter Martin (however controversial that may have been with members of Martin's family, etc.)
> 
> I could be forgetting some folks, but the other somewhat prominent converts to EO from evangelicalism who I can think of have been academics or journalists who were never bestselling authors and popular radio hosts. (I don't know how many books Hanegraaf has sold, but a couple of his books seemed to be everywhere in the late 90s.)
> 
> I do think it may be bigger than Franky Schaeffer, who was never really much more than an angry young man who only came to prominence due to who his father was. And I think he had more or less dropped off the radar as an author and filmmaker by the time he went EO.
> 
> EDIT: If half of what the commenter on Triablogue says is true, then it might not come to much unless some EOs really try to prop him up. I remember hearing some of that years ago but I had forgotten about it. It may have been in some article about the scandal of ghostwriting in evangelical publishing.


The biggest bestsellers for awhile have been the likes of TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and Rick Warren, so it is pretty plain that sound doctrine is not that high of a priority to may today! The Answer man best work was in thje area of Charasmatic Chaos, but not that strong on the other doctrines of the faith in my opinion...


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> No. They would say we are deified by the divine energies, something Moral Example theories reject.
> 
> 
> 
> No one reads the Bible in a vacuum. But to kind of answer your question, Greek metaphysics (however one wants to gloss that phrase) does form a background.


Could that be why the late temptation of Christ book/movie focused mainly on Jesus as a Man, His humanity and not really into Him as God?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This, outlining the distinctions and claims of EO, is a worthwhile read from a URCNA pastor:
> 
> http://www.christurc.org/blog/2016/...tian-church-the-allure-of-eastern-orthodoxy-1


Thanks, but the area in which they view the various church Councils as having the same weight as the scriptures, and where they claim tradition and unbroken Apostolic succession, along with their defective view on the Gospel, tells me that they are not really a valid Church!


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Could that be why the late temptation of Christ book/movie focused mainly on Jesus as a Man, His humanity and not really into Him as God?



I don't know. Part of the problem is that even conservative evangelicals are sloppy in their terms. They will say Jesus was a human being who is also God. But that's not right. Jesus is a divine person who assumed a human nature. If evangelicals can't get the terminology right, I really don't expect unbelievers to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Thanks, but the area in which they view the various church Councils as having the same weight as the scriptures, and where they claim tradition and unbroken Apostolic succession, along with their defective view on the Gospel, tells me that they are not really a valid Church!



Apostolic succession doesn't negate the gospel. I disagree with it, but I am not ready to write off guys like Irenaeus, Augustine, Anselm, and Hooker.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Thanks, but the area in which they view the various church Councils as having the same weight as the scriptures, and where they claim tradition and unbroken Apostolic succession, along with their defective view on the Gospel, tells me that they are not really a valid Church!


You will need to define your terms beforehand.

We claim _tradition _- Apostolic tradition following the sound patterns of Scripture
We claim _succession_ - in the form of the unbroken series of the ministry of the word, that is _doctrinal succession _from Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and onward

What do you mean by a _defective view of the Gospel _and_ valid church_? How do you define the test Paul gives in Galatians 1:8-9? In other words, what exactly is _the gospel_ that Paul and apostles preached? Is it simply 1 Cor 15:3-4? For example, the entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "_my Gospel_".

Calvin declared that Rome failed the Gal. 1:8-9 test and excommunicated herself, yet he maintained there was a _true church_ among her. Are Arminian-based churches invalid? Why or why not?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You will need to define your terms beforehand.
> 
> We claim _tradition _- Apostolic tradition following the sound patterns of Scripture
> We claim _succession_ - in the form of the unbroken series of the ministry of the word, that is _doctrinal succession _from Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and onward
> 
> What do you mean by a _defective view of the Gospel _and_ valid church_? How do you define the test Paul gives in Galatians 1:8-9? In other words, what exactly is _the gospel_ that Paul and apostles preached? Is it simply 1 Cor 15:3-4? For example, the entire letter of Romans is repeatedly referred to by Paul as "_my Gospel_".
> 
> Calvin declared that Rome failed the Gal. 1:8-9 test and excommunicated herself, yet he maintained there was a _true church_ among her. Are Arminian-based churches invalid? Why or why not?


I would define Apostolic succession for them, as well as Rome, as assuming that they have the authority passed down through their church from the original Apostles, so that their views regarding doctrines are seen as being infallible, and the only correct way to view the scripturesd.
I do see that the Lord has reserved out and saved for Himself even among RCC and the EO, but that would be despite their false gospels, and do to His grace and mercy, and yes, do see Him saving in Arminian based theology churches, as their mistaken viewpoints regarding salvation not nearly as grave as in either EO/RCC!


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Apostolic succession doesn't negate the gospel. I disagree with it, but I am not ready to write off guys like Irenaeus, Augustine, Anselm, and Hooker.


I agree with you, as their were and still are people who are really saved even among the RCC/EO and know the Lord and theology, just a pity they choose to remain in there!


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I would define Apostolic succession for them, as well as Rome, as assuming that they have the authority passed down through their church from the original Apostles, so that their views regarding doctrines are seen as being infallible, and the only correct way to view the scripturesd.



More importantly, how do _they _define it? EO sees it as an unbroken line of bishops. For Rome all that matters is the Pope.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> More importantly, how do _they _define it? EO sees it as an unbroken line of bishops. For Rome all that matters is the Pope.


Both of them though would use that as the way to claim that their church theology would be the only correct way to view the scriptures. correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Both of them though would use that as the way to claim that their church theology would be the only correct way to view the scriptures. correct?



More or less, but then you could respond, "Well, wouldn't I need an interpret to properly interpret my interpretation?"


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> More or less, but then you could respond, "Well, wouldn't I need an interpret to properly interpret my interpretation?"


They both seem to use tradition and other authority to undermine the Bible, to make it conform to their own theology, or else fall back upon another source of authority, thankfully we adopted just the scriptures as being sole authority...


----------



## ZackF

Infallibility regression is the most obvious argument against infallible human interpretations.


----------



## Edward

ReformedReidian said:


> More importantly, how do _they _define it? EO sees it as an unbroken line of bishops. For Rome all that matters is the Pope.



Do you have a source for that? Because it doesn't comport with either my understanding or that of the Papists.

"Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world *all* Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles...." (emphasis supplied) https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession

Anglicans make the same claims for their bishops.


----------



## RamistThomist

Edward said:


> Do you have a source for that? Because it doesn't comport with either my understanding or that of the Papists.
> 
> "Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world *all* Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles...." (emphasis supplied) https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession
> 
> Anglicans make the same claims for their bishops.



Sure. Bishops are important but at the end of the day only one Bishop truly matters


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They both seem to use tradition and other authority to undermine the Bible, to make it conform to their own theology, or else fall back upon another source of authority, thankfully we adopted just the scriptures as being sole authority...



Scriptures are our final authority, not our sole authority. Presumably, our pastor is in authority over us. But his authority isn't absolute.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> do see Him saving in Arminian based theology churches, as their mistaken viewpoints regarding salvation not nearly as grave as in either EO/RCC!


What are the grave aspects of EO regarding salvation that you see?


----------



## RamistThomist

Unless I am mistaken, Turretin says the Greeks are wrong on the Filioque, but that doesn't negate them as a church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What are the grave aspects of EO regarding salvation that you see?


I could well be wrong, but their views on salvation proper seem to be denying the essential doctrine of a sinner being justified before God by grace alone through faith alone.
Not exactly the same as the church of Rome sees this, but does still seem to be holding to another/different Gospel...


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Scriptures are our final authority, not our sole authority. Presumably, our pastor is in authority over us. But his authority isn't absolute.


They seem to elevate though traditions to be equal to scripture, correct?


----------



## ZackF

Dachaser said:


> I could well be wrong, but their views on salvation proper seem to be denying the essential doctrine of a sinner being justified before God by grace alone through faith alone.
> Not exactly the same as the church of Rome sees this, but does still seem to be holding to another/different Gospel...



The reject Sola Fide. So yes they hold to another gospel.


----------



## Dachaser

ZackF said:


> The reject Sola Fide. So yes they hold to another gospel.


Is it a saving one then?


----------



## ZackF

Dachaser said:


> Is it a saving one then?



It is as others have said here. There is a difference between doctrinal formulations of a church or a church's theologians and what said church's individual congregants may believe. Because of what the EO teach, we should evangelize. However I personally think it is presuppositionalism 101 to ask the person what_ he _personally believes. Don't assume too much. There is a lot of nominalism out there. He may shadow an EO church door for hatches, matches, dispatches, the Birth and Resurrection fellowship and that is it. Some church goers, especially in the USA where in places it is still the "thing to do", are functioning atheists. Or less often the person in question may believe in Christ alone by faith alone and need help seeing that his church rejects those beliefs.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I could well be wrong, but their views on salvation proper seem to be denying the essential doctrine of a sinner being justified before God by grace alone through faith alone.
> Not exactly the same as the church of Rome sees this, but does still seem to be holding to another/different Gospel...



Sad to say, but much of church history this was the case, yet Calvin didn't think those churches were apostate (otherwise he wouldn't have quoted those theologians).


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They seem to elevate though traditions to be equal to scripture, correct?



Formally, no. Practically, it depends on which group.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

It is mystifying to me why some of us seem to be easier on the EO than we would be on Arminians. Let's be clear, regardless of any nuance or obsfucation that may exist, the EO engage in rampant idolatry and believe a different gospel. We should therefore follow the instruction of Paul and let them be an anathema.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## earl40

ReformedReidian said:


> Sad to say, but much of church history this was the case, yet Calvin didn't think those churches were apostate (otherwise he wouldn't have quoted those theologians).



"Those theologians" were around before Rome anathematized itself officially.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> It is mystifying to me why some of us seem to be easier on the EO than we would be on Arminians. Let's be clear, regardless of any nuance or obsfucation that may exist, the EO engage in rampant idolatry and believe a different gospel. We should therefore follow the instruction of Paul and let them be an anathema.


They would in some cases be more extreme than the Arminians in how they view that God justifies the sinner!


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Sad to say, but much of church history this was the case, yet Calvin didn't think those churches were apostate (otherwise he wouldn't have quoted those theologians).


Those would be before the Council of Trent though, as I think that is when Rome Officially went Apostate


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Those would be before the Council of Trent though, as I think that is when Rome Officially went Apostate



I wasn't including post-Tridentine thinkers. I was including figures from roughly 250 AD to 1500.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> "Those theologians" were around before Rome anathematized itself officially.



I agree. I don't see how that changes anything, and many of those thinkers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor) wouldn't have seen themselves as Roman Catholic (Nazianzus called Athanasius the "pope of the whole world") and have with some justification been claimed by EO


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> It is mystifying to me why some of us seem to be easier on the EO than we would be on Arminians. Let's be clear, regardless of any nuance or obsfucation that may exist, the EO engage in rampant idolatry and believe a different gospel. We should therefore follow the instruction of Paul and let them be an anathema.



I've been banned from numerous EO message boards and blogs. Trust me, I am not being nice or easy on them. But I do know what they believe, and if someone who only has 2nd hand knowledge comes across a sharp thinker from Energetic Processions, it will be very ugly and very public.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> I've been banned from numerous EO message boards and blogs. Trust me, I am not being nice or easy on them. But I do know what they believe, and if someone who only has 2nd hand knowledge comes across a sharp thinker from Energetic Processions, it will be very ugly and very public.


While it is important to know their theology, would think most important to know the scriptures real theology!


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> While it is important to know their theology, would think most important to know the scriptures real theology!



Nobody disputes that, but if we are going to do evangelism and apologetics you have to know what the other guy said from primary sources.

You don't have to do that. I don't spend a lot of time attacking Mormons or the like, mainly because Providence placed me in the EO orbit for a while. But if you are going to engage a group, you have to spend time (think years) interacting with the best they have to offer. I expect the same of anyone who wants to engage Reformed theology. If you don't know Turretin, don't tell me where Reformed are wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Nobody disputes that, but if we are going to do evangelism and apologetics you have to know what the other guy said from primary sources.
> 
> You don't have to do that. I don't spend a lot of time attacking Mormons or the like, mainly because Providence placed me in the EO orbit for a while. But if you are going to engage a group, you have to spend time (think years) interacting with the best they have to offer. I expect the same of anyone who wants to engage Reformed theology. If you don't know Turretin, don't tell me where Reformed are wrong.


I understand that, as we must see things from their perspective, and than place that up against what the scriptures state...
How did you finally come down in the case of the EO? A real Christian church, or a church with another Gospel, but still have some saved among them?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I understand that, as we must see things from their perspective, and than place that up against what the scriptures state...
> How did you finally come down in the case of the EO? A real Christian church, or a church with another Gospel, but still have some saved among them?



The Confession states "more or less pure churches." That's a wiser way to put


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

ReformedReidian said:


> ...if someone who only has 2nd hand knowledge comes across a sharp thinker from Energetic Processions, it will be very ugly and very public.


I see Perry Robinson is all aflutter at the wordpress version of EE lately.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I see Perry Robinson is all aflutter at the wordpress version of EE lately.



That's going to be interesting to watch. Perry and I almost debated in 2013, but we were both busy and had issues to deal with. We have sort of kept in touch via email. 

When Perry came on the scene in 2007, his style of argument and his knowledge of church fathers caught a lot of people off guard. He warned his followers (which he never wanted) that they better step up to the plate because in a few years Protestants will learn how to counter these arguments. Few took him seriously.

And despite HH's conversion, and contrary to every blog piece at Orthodox Bridge, people aren't leaving Evangelicalism to convert to Orthodoxy (or even Rome).


----------



## Edward

I don't know if there is a link up-thread, and I'm not disposed at the moment to browse through 5 pages and look, so I'll just comment that I saw this Apology linked on another site, and found it helpful on the issues:

_*An Apology to the Eastern Orthodox Community*_ 
http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/04/21/an-apology-to-the-eastern-orthodoxy-community/

The reference to the 1689 suggests a RB writer.


----------



## RamistThomist

Edward said:


> I don't know if there is a link up-thread, and I'm not disposed at the moment to browse through 5 pages and look, so I'll just comment that I saw this Apology linked on another site, and found it helpful on the issues:
> 
> _*An Apology to the Eastern Orthodox Community*_
> http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/04/21/an-apology-to-the-eastern-orthodoxy-community/
> 
> The reference to the 1689 suggests a RB writer.



I read it. I won't get those three minutes of my life back. It's good for "troll-value" (I speak as someone rather skilled at trolling) but for substance you'll need to go elsewhere. Whatever you do, don't read the facebook comments. You will see both Reformed and EO at their worst.


----------



## Justified

Edward said:


> I don't know if there is a link up-thread, and I'm not disposed at the moment to browse through 5 pages and look, so I'll just comment that I saw this Apology linked on another site, and found it helpful on the issues:
> 
> _*An Apology to the Eastern Orthodox Community*_
> http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/04/21/an-apology-to-the-eastern-orthodoxy-community/
> 
> The reference to the 1689 suggests a RB writer.


Poor 'ole Auggy didn't get the memo. I guess he'll be burning in hell forever.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Justified said:


> Poor 'ole Auggy didn't get the memo. I guess he'll be burning in hell forever.



A number of Lutherans (rather hilariously) pointed out that in one of the videos the P&P guy did condemning a set of points the EO believed as constituting a false gospel, Luther also believed those points. And there was a picture of Luther in the background!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justified

ReformedReidian said:


> A number of Lutherans (rather hilariously) pointed out that in one of the videos the P&P guy did condemning a set of points the EO believed as constituting a false gospel, Luther also believed those points. And there was a picture of Luther in the background!


Lol! My favorite is when people run to Augustine's aid, saying, "he didn't understand Greek!" Yeah, he couldn't read it comfortably, but his level of Greek, I am confident, was better than the average seminary graduate. Though Auggy was the theologian of grace _par excellance, _he just didn't believe in justification by faith alone. I'm glad that the gospel is about the finished work of Christ not my believing in JBFA!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LilyG

ReformedReidian said:


> Whatever you do, don't read the facebook comments. You will see both Reformed and EO at their worst.



Lol. Really, it is sad to see all the encouragement and simple-minded support Hank's fans are throwing at him.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> I read it. I won't get those three minutes of my life back. It's good for "troll-value" (I speak as someone rather skilled at trolling) but for substance you'll need to go elsewhere. Whatever you do, don't read the facebook comments. You will see both Reformed and EO at their worst.



P&P is always a bit over the top, but there is still a good point buried beneath the bluster. As a whole, we have been too soft on the EO.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> P&P is always a bit over the top, but there is still a good point buried beneath the bluster. As a whole, we have been too soft on the EO.



PP is the same pop level apologetics that its EO opponents give. If you've read one of these interchanges, you've read several hundreds. I used to have most of this stuff saved on my computer. Same conversation every time.

I don't think necessarily we've been soft on EO, it's simply we've had no reason to really engage them. One sees Roman Catholics everywhere, but EO are more ethnically clustered.


----------



## RamistThomist

LilyG said:


> Lol. Really, it is sad to see all the encouragement and simple-minded support Hank's fans are throwing at him.



I agree, and some of my EO friends are warning their compatriots that Hank's legal problems could resurface and make everyone look foolish.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LilyG

Ugh, I need to stop reading facebook comments and slapping faces. Someone slap me.


----------



## arapahoepark

LilyG said:


> Ugh, I need to stop reading facebook comments and slapping faces. Someone slap me.


*SLAP*


----------



## LilyG

arapahoepark said:


> *SLAP*



Thank you!


----------

