Hanegraaff to Constantinople

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
Ephesians 2:8-10 is on the front page of equip.org tonight. Cognitive dissonance?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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....
 
...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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top