Posted on 07/14/2017 10:35:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: “. . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you.”
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
4) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”
5) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
6) Jude 3: “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
7) Lk 1:1-5 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us
Not any more than all Baptists or all Lutherans, or all Methodists are.
I'm sure there are Christians within the EO church just like there are in every denomination. And there are unbelievers in every church as well.
You stated multiple times that Hank should not be doing a show called the Bible Answer Man because he joined a church that doesn't follow scripture. You compared it to a Communist country claiming to be "Democratic" when they doesn't have democratic elections. Orthodox Churches use and teach bible scripture regularly, and many of them do so more frequently than many "mainline" protestant churches. The only one doing the misrepresenting here is you, by continuing to assert that studying and learning bible scripture is not a part of Orthodox Christianity when the reality is that is a MAJOR component. Again, it would akin to me saying Billy Graham should not talk about heaven or hell because he is a member of a church that doesn't believe in an afterlife.
>> It just breeds suspicion and undermines credibility as well as making you look dishonest if you pretend there’s no differences. THOSE DIFFERENCES form the dividing line between Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy even as they share many things in common. Let’s not pretend that there are no differences. <<
Nobody is claiming there is "no differences" between Evangelical Protestant Christianity and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, we are merely pointing out the fact that both teach and use bible scripture routinely and that BOTH are considered mainstream "Christian" churches. Numerous protestants here apparently refuse to accept that and continue to insist that Hank joined a church that is NOT "scripture based". If Hank was hosting a show called "The Contemporary Music Prayer Service Answer Man", you would have a valid point that he joined a church that DOESN'T use that element in its teaching, so he is really not suited to be talking about it on television.
>> Second, he should have simply added some Orthodox material to balance things out. <<
That is exactly what he is doing and why they want to remove him. The article itself notes "Rische argued that Hanegraaff has been "trying to take Eastern Orthodox theology and blend it with Protestant theology." He is adding supplemental Eastern Orthodox material to his television show since he is now a member of an Orthodox church. He hasn't STOPPED teaching basic Christian dogma from the bible.
>> “Jesus’ death on the cross provided a penal substitutionary atonement for the sins of humanity. In salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath <<
That statement is perfectly compatible with Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and any mainstream Christianity. The only ones I can see objecting to such a statement would be some group like Unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses.
>> For that matter, why doesn’t Hank just come out and say he doesn’t believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura anymore and explain why? <<
If he joined an Orthodox Church, I have little doubt he no longer believes in in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura anymore. Perhaps the reason he doesn't is because his focus The Bible Answer Man is to address topics in the bible for all Christian viewers, not to speak out AGAINST a doctrine that many of his listeners believe in.
Again, if the situation was reversed and a Catholic TV show host had a show named "Lives of the Twelve Apostles", I would NOT object if he wanted to continue hosting the show after becoming a member of a Dutch Reformed Church, nor would I claim he's unsuited for the job because Dutch Reform Christians don't believe in the twelve apostles. Were he to specifically start blasting Catholic doctrines that had nothing to do with the twelve apostles, like having a segment saying he longer believed in the rosary and its a false concept, I would object. As it stands, I can't imagine Hank is planning to do any "Why John Calvin is a heretic and Total Depravity is a lie" segments.
<< If we had an Eastern Orthodox radio host who became a baptist, do you think they would leave him untouched? <<
If an Eastern Orthodox Christian hosts a show called "The two natures of Christ" and he wants to continue to discuss the subject after becoming a Baptist, that's perfectly fine with me. I wouldn't pretend the Baptists don't believe Christ is both human and divine and say "He can't host the show now because he is no longer part of a church that teaches Christ is both God and man" because I disagree with them on OTHER stuff.
>> And the very act of PRAYING TO MARY is what Evangelicals disagree with as well <<
Again, he is hosting a show called The Bible Answer Man, not "Praying 101". If he starts his television program by whipping out a Chotki and instructing viewers that he is going to lead them on The Rule of the Theotokos each week, THEN you'd have a valid point that "he is no longer the Bible Answer Man" is specifically promoting only Eastern Orthodox beliefs.
>> The first part of the Hail Mary prayer is scriptural. It was the statement made by the Angel Gabriel to Mary. <<
Gosh, but you were saying over and over again that those churches don't use scripture?
Matthew 27:5.... Then he (Judas) went away and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37..., "Go and do likewise."
Is that accurate?
O heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of Truth
who are in all places and fillest all things:
Treasury of good things and Giver of life:
Come and dwell in us and cleanse us from every stain,
and save our souls, O good One.
Orthodox believe in the synergy of God's grace and human response. The human response is manifested both through faith and through good works which reach their perfection in love.
The prime example of synergy is the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) who was chosen by God's grace ("hail, full of grace") yet who responded to that grace by her free will ("be it done to me accoring to Thy word").
Even Martin Luther thought that trying to separate faith and good works was to create a false dichotomy. "One can no more separate good works from faith than to separate heat and light from fire" (paraphrase of Luther's preface to his commentary on Romans).
No.
As an Orthodox Christian, I want to say “Welcome Home” to Hank and his family!
>>I wrote what I believe history tells us is true. If I’m wrong or missed something, tell me why. Hopefully, none of us are so intractable that we won’t change a position when that position is proven wrong.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, because I am in full agreement with everything you stated in your post.
Orthodoxy and Western Christianity: Salvation in Christ...
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_salvation.aspx
He will be in excellent company.
The Antiochian Orthodox Archioces and the Orthodox Church in America have many converts who were clergy in the former lives; many (but not all) who eventually enter the Priesthood.
My AOA parish has five former clergy in the congregation. Some have found satisfying careers in teaching or social services; some struggle.
>>This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. That without a church council, we would not know what books are inspired.
I think you present an interesting theory, but it deemphasizes the fact that during and after the apostolic era there were many writings which were thought to be, and were claimed to be inspired, and therefore worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament. The “regional” councils to which you refer distinguished which were truly inspired and which were not. The first sentence of your third graph does not conflict with what I’ve just stated. The second sentence of that graph is an example of circular reasoning.
RE: You stated multiple times that Hank should not be doing a show called the Bible Answer Man because he joined a church that doesn’t follow scripture.
Yes, as understood by Evangelicals since it IS an evangelical show.
I did not say this however : “he joined a church that doesn’t follow scripture.”
Show me where I said that.
I did say this : CRI has a Statement of Faith that Hank signed on to. That statement of faith includes things that are not in conformance to what the Orthodox Church believes in.
How can he continue to represent the CRI when he joins the Orthodox Church While simultaneously signing on to a statement of faith that is not in conformance to what the Orthodox church teaches?
RE: The only one doing the misrepresenting here is you, by continuing to assert that studying and learning bible scripture is not a part of Orthodox Christianity when the reality is that is a MAJOR component. Again, it would akin to me saying Billy Graham should not talk about heaven or hell because he is a member of a church that doesn’t believe in an afterlife
Again, I want you to show me by referrring to the post number in this thread where I said those things. If I did say them, I will clarify what I meant. So please do so, show me which one. Better still, copy and paste it in your next response to me. This is my second request to you. I am still waiting....
RE: you would have a valid point that he joined a church that DOESN’T use that element in its teaching, so he is really not suited to be talking about it on television.
And THAT is my MAIN point as I stated several times. If Hank is to be honest with himself and with his audience, he should quit the Bible Answer Man show and being President of the CRI. The family of the founder are right.
I’m glad we are in agreement here.
RE: That is exactly what he is doing and why they want to remove him. The article itself notes “Rische argued that Hanegraaff has been “trying to take Eastern Orthodox theology and blend it with Protestant theology.” He is adding supplemental Eastern Orthodox material to his television show since he is now a member of an Orthodox church. He hasn’t STOPPED teaching basic Christian dogma from the bible.
Well, that is the point of the contention — the SUPPLEMENTATION of Orthodox dogma which Evangelicals DO NOT agree with.
The listeners, supporters and members of churches that support the show and the institute, DO NOT AGREE with the supplemental material.
And the material is not merely supplemental as you suggest but BASIC when it comes to doctrine. The major contention between Evangelicals, Protestants AND Catholics and Orthodox when it comes to the issue of justification by Grace through faith alone.
So take BAM show for April 27th, 2017. At about the 4 minute mark continuing to the 9 minute mark, Hank attempts to discuss the relationship between faith and works, specifically in relationship to James 2:24.
Now for the bulk of what he says you only have to look at this sheet from CRI to see that he is cribbing from it:
http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/does-james-teach-salvation-by-works/
This a summary of the standard Reformed doctrine on the relationship between faith and works. Faith and works are contiguous, that is, they exist together, but one does not participate in the other. That is, no human activity contributes to justification. This is why faith has to be an empty virtue. It is instrumentally valuable because it is a vehicle for the transfer of moral credit, but in and of itself it is worthless. All human activity is precluded from justification.
But Hank is unclear as to whether he still believes this or whether he takes this to be compatible with an Orthodox view of justification. The Orthodox DO NOT take this position, and if he is to give the Orthodox view, then he should say so and also tell the audience why this is the correct view as opposed to the Reformed view that he used to adhere to.
He begins by saying he’s going “back to what the Bible says.” Well if that is what he thinks the Bible says, then he must think that the Bible teaches Sola Fide, as the CRI doctrinal statement (article 6) indicates and that Orthodoxy is not correct in their interpretation of scripture.
The fact that he doesn’t know that this interpretation is part and parcel of Sola Fide and hence incompatible with Orthodox teaching is yet further proof that he cannot speak for the statement of faith REQUIRED by CRI. After thirty years of theological study and interaction, this should be a cake walk.
If Hank wants to be a spokesperson for the Orthodox Community, the better way to do it is to ask the supporters and members of the Orthodox church to help him start a program... something like — The Orthodox View of Scripture.
THAT would be more in keeping with the way things ought to be.
RE: That statement is perfectly compatible with Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and any mainstream Christianity. The only ones I can see objecting to such a statement would be some group like Unitarians or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You just cut the statement that Hank signed on to of faith MID SENTENCE. Here is the one you did not include:
“by His unmerited GRACE ALONE, through FAITH ALONE, on account of Christ alone.”
Those lines you did not include CONSTITUTE the main dividing line between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Evangelicalism.
If Hank disagrees with the missing statement you did not include, then that is cause for concern among the Evangelicals who support the show.
That IS and has always been the point of contention and the reason why we had the Reformation in the first place.
RE: If he joined an Orthodox Church, I have little doubt he no longer believes in in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura anymore.
And that IS the main issue from the viewpoint of the founders of the organization and supporters of the show, which includes many churches and prominent evangelicals.
This is and always has been the dividing line between Protestants, Evangelicals and Catholics and Orthodox.
One should understand why supporters of the show DO NOT WANT someone who does not support these (for them ) FUNDAMENTAL understanding of ultimate authority AND the basis by which one is justified by God.
RE: Perhaps the reason he doesn’t is because his focus The Bible Answer Man is to address topics in the bible for all Christian viewers, not to speak out AGAINST a doctrine that many of his listeners believe in.
Unfortunately, a large number of questions relate to how one is saved. Now that he has openly announced his Chrismation, of course, a large number of questions are going to relate to the difference between Orthodox and Evangelical beliefs.
That’s why I said this — Why isn’t Hank bound by this doctrinal statement? Does he affirm the CRI doctrinal statement as it stands or not? If not, how can he work there when CRI advances doctrines that directly contradict the teaching of his church? To do so, gives tacit assent and support to those doctrines. If he does assent to it, how can he be in communion with the Orthodox church when at his chrismation he either explicitly or implicitly publicly swore before God and the church to uphold all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church and those teachings are logically incompatible with the CRI doctrinal statement? What is more, why are his employees obligated by a doctrinal standard that he apparently is not? Why does Hank get a doctrinal pass?
RE: if the situation was reversed and a Catholic TV show host had a show named “Lives of the Twelve Apostles”, I would NOT object if he wanted to continue hosting the show after becoming a member of a Dutch Reformed Church, nor would I claim he’s unsuited for the job because Dutch Reform Christians don’t believe in the twelve apostles.
Are you serious or are you simply being facetious? I’m not certain what you mean when you said : “Dutch Reform Christians don’t believe in the twelve apostles.” Of course they do.
If the show were merely about the lives of the 12 apostles, there would be no issue at all. However, this is not the case with the CRI and the Bible Answer Man. The show touches on ALL DOCTRINAL MATTERS.
Would the RCC have a Dutch Reformed Minister hosting a Roman Catholic show and then explaining to his audience why the Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura is the correct view? I highly doubt that.
RE: If an Eastern Orthodox Christian hosts a show called “The two natures of Christ” and he wants to continue to discuss the subject after becoming a Baptist, that’s perfectly fine with me. I wouldn’t pretend the Baptists don’t believe Christ is both human and divine and say “He can’t host the show now because he is no longer part of a church that teaches Christ is both God and man” because I disagree with them on OTHER stuff.
If the entire show were only LIMITED to THAT ONE TOPIC, a topic both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox agree on, there would be no issues at all. Unfortunately if you listen to the show long enough as I have, the questions people who call bring up, go BEYOND that one topic.
You can devote one show to the topic of the Trinity. Fine, you can then invite an Orthodox or even a Catholic to join the show and answer questions LIMITED TO THAT ONE TOPIC. But what are you going to do BEYOND that one show?
Issues like who to pray to, confession, icons, images, the basis by which one is justified, etc. etc. topics which there are major disagreements between Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox are all covered.
That is why you cannot simply pick and choose one or two topic ( ones where there is no disagreement at all ) and then on that basis say, there should be no issues with a Protestant hosting a Catholic show that answers questions about the faith. It is not as simple as that.
RE: Again, he is hosting a show called The Bible Answer Man, not “Praying 101”. If he starts his television program by whipping out a Chotki and instructing viewers that he is going to lead them on The Rule of the Theotokos each week, THEN you’d have a valid point that “he is no longer the Bible Answer Man” is specifically promoting only Eastern Orthodox beliefs.
Again, the only problem with that is Hank has been hosting the show for decades and people know what he used to believe in. Now that they know of his Chrismation, those topics and others are going to be brought up and he will be hard pressed NOT to tell his audience why he now repudiates the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
And if Hank does that, of course, he supporters of the show are going to be concerned and rightly so.
That would be like an Evangelical hosting a Catholic show and telling people who call asking them about the topic ( because they KNOW he is not Catholic) why he believes that the Catholic view is erroneous or why the Pope is not infallible even when he claims to speak ex-cathedra.
YOU CANNOT AVOID THESE TOPIC UNLESS YOU ACTIVELY SUPPRESS AND SCREEN PEOPLE WHO CALL. And why would one want to do abandon that tradition of accepting calls as they come?
RE: Gosh, but you were saying over and over again that those churches don’t use scripture?
The fact that I DID say that the first part is scriptural should already tell you that I never said what you claimed I said.
It is what goes BEYOND what scripture teaches that makes the difference. That is why one has to understand the concerned brought up by the family of Walter Martin and other supporters.
I can’t find a better way than for Hank to host a show sponsored by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
RE: it deemphasizes the fact that during and after the apostolic era there were many writings which were thought to be, and were claimed to be inspired.
Sure there were. But why were they not accepted? It was because the entire community of churches RECOGNIZED that they were not apostolic. In other words, these extra-canonical writings were NOT ACCEPTED by the body of Christ at large.
RE: The first sentence of your third graph does not conflict with what I’ve just stated. The second sentence of that graph is an example of circular reasoning.
Is this the circular reasoning that you refer to?
“In other words, these councils were declaring THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN, not the way they wanted them to be.”
How is that circular?
My departed father wrote a letter to our relatives and to me and my family giving us instructions as to how he wishes his vast holdings to be disposed.
The relatives are spread out all over the world. However, his letter was read to everyone spread out worldwide.
Some people disagreed that these instructions were not the wishes of my father. How do we know that it is indeed from him?
They know it was from him because we have spoken to our father, the relatives know the man and understood his writing style, and he had verbally expressed his wishes before and only put them into writing before he died.
In other words, there was already a consensus among his immediate family AND other relatives.
In order to dispel the doubt, the relatives came together with me and my family and we formally tell the doubters that we recognize this as the very wish of my father. We also draft a form to tell those in posterity that this was indeed the way my father wanted to dispose his vast holdings.
Did the draft form MAKE his letter more authentic? Or was it simply a formal recognition of what his family already knew about his wishes that they placed on paper?
In the same way, the councils did not GIVE us the canon. The Canon was already widely accepted. They simply FORMALIZED the process for posterity.
RE: 1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: “. . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you.”
And what are these ordinances?
Let’s outline them as presented in scripture.
RE: 2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
Obviously, Paul was not saying, ‘Hold to Scripture and some oral component EXTERNAL to scripture.’
In context, his meaning is much simpler. When you read the preceding verses, and take into account the context, Paul’s meaning is simple. Paul had preached the gospel to the Thessalonians in person. He was now writing to them. He has just noted the gospel, and he is saying, ‘Hold to the body of teaching, i.e., the gospel, that I have delivered to you, both in person when I delivered ti to you orally and by letter.’
The letter, of course, was what we call 1 Thessalonians. The content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were privileged to learn, at that unique time of apostolic ministry, both from an apostle (Paul), and from a letter directly from him. Note even how Paul uses the same term, which we translate, ‘hold fast,’ in 1 Corinthians 16:13, ‘Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.’
RE: 3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
Same explanation as above. There is NO DIFFERENCE between what Paul taught the Thessalonian Christians orally and what he wrote to them.
I don’t see this as argument for extraneous traditions like praying to Mary that are not written in scripture.
RE: 4) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”
Yes, and what he declared and what he wrote were EXACTLY THE SAME.
I don’t think you can glean from the above verses that Paul actually taught the Thessalonians or the Corinthians such things as the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, both dogmas based quite fully on ‘tradition.’
RE: 5) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
True, because what Paul preached orally was THE GOSPEL. He was simply reminding the Thessalonians what he taught them, this time IN WRITING.
6) Jude 3: “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Yes we should. And that faith delivered is given to us IN WRITING IN SCRIPTURE.
7) Lk 1:1-5 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us.
Well, where in Luke’s gospel do we find the Immaculate Conception or prayer to the Saints?
We don’t. We accept EXACTLY what Luke wrote. The other practices are simply extraneous and non-binding for Christians.
>>“In other words, these councils were declaring THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN, not the way they wanted them to be.”
Because the concluding clause bears no necessary relationship to the opening clause. You could just as logically have said that the way things had been is just the way the councils wanted things to be. In other words the sentence is a nonsequitur, i.e., the second clause does not logically follow from the opening clause.
RE: 2 John 1:12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish [to do so] with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
And if these things he told them (not written in paper and ink ) were so important, why did he not put them in paper in the first place?
Has it not dawned on you that perhaps what he told them orally was not much different than what he wrote to them?
Citing the above verse is not proof that traditions like the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility or prayer to the saints were mentioned orally and not put into paper.
If these traditions form an integral part of the faith, it is strange that they were never written down at all.
The argument seems to be that these unwritten traditions referred to are different than those which were written. Such cannot be proven from this verse.
You must be pressed to prove that both categories contain different information.
The ore satisfactory and straightforward understanding is John and the Apostle Paul speak of the gospel, not doctrines like papal infallibility, indulgences, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
If these Traditions indeed exist, the act of producing them should be an easy task. However, Roman Catholic apologists for instance, can only point to highly debatable vague inferences from Scripture on such doctrines, further impaired by any lack of infallible biblical definition from the papacy.
Note what St. Paul says when he mentioned tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:5, after writing on the man of lawlessness, Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? The content being told matched that being written.
RE: You could just as logically have said that the way things had been is just the way the councils wanted things to be
Nope. The councils were composed of men who came from the Christian community. They could not INVENT or CHOOSE writings ( your “what the councils wanted them to be “ ) that were not considered sacred by the Christian community at large.
What they did was simply FORMALIZE what their church members already recognized for posterity.
>> They could not INVENT or CHOOSE writings ( your “what the councils wanted them to be “ ) that were not considered sacred by the Christian community at large.
What they did was simply FORMALIZE what their church members already recognized for posterity.
I trust that you are not purposely misconstruing what I’m saying here. My meaning is that the councils indeed may have wanted to create or endorse or certify or FORMALIZE a canon that would be in accordance with what was considered by the majority of Christians to be inspired. BUT, can you cite to any contemporaneous authoritative source in support of that contention? If so, I’d like to see it. By the way, it’s a good thing ML was not a member of the deciding council, because if he had been the canon might have one less book! He is said to have despised the Epistle of James!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.