Hanegraaff to Constantinople

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

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

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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...
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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).
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
"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
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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!
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top