Evangelical Apologist Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy

religiousresearcher.org ^ | 4-10-2017 | Rob Bowman

[fishtank]

Evangelical Apologist Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy

Posted by: Rob Bowman

On Palm Sunday, April 9, 2017, Hank Hanegraaff formally joined the Orthodox Church. Since 1989 Hanegraaff has been the President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and (since ca. 1992) the host of CRI’s Bible Answer Man radio program.[1] Hank, his wife Kathy, and two of their twelve children were inducted by a sacramental rite called chrismation into the Orthodox faith at St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, near where CRI is based. In chrismation, a baptized individual is anointed with oil in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[2]

[imardmd1]

Saved by Faith; but Kept by Works.

I don't think so, Els. That thought might pass under Wesley's theology, but not under Pauline thinking. What I hear this suggesting is that you have to do good works to keep your salvation; that otherwise you can lose it. That's Arminian, not Biblical.

Try this:

=========

"Saved by Faith; Served by Works; Kept by Jesus and My Heavenly Father.

Joh 10:27-29 AV:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them ^to me, is greater than all;
and no man is able to pluck i>them out of my Father's hand.

======

Once I am His and no longer Satan's possession, nobody, not even me, can escape His grip as His possession. If I coulf, I would be stronger than Satan. But, why would I, once committed to Him, ever even think of it?

"Saved by Faith; Serving by Faith; Kept by His Faithfulness"

[imardmd1]

Ha ha ha haha, oh, heeee!

[imardmd1]

Excellent! no more of this "I am the Captain of my fate" stuff . . .

[Mark17]

So, the judgement of Mathew 25, is the judgement of the nations, prior to 1,000 year reign of Christ, and the Great White Throne judgement is at the end of the millennial kingdom? I think the bottom line is, no one wants to be a goat 🐐 but God doesn't have to ask any of them what they believe. He already knows who are His and who are not.

[imardmd1]

ubthread theme:

Vlad: The spiritual poverty of Evangelicalism is in stark contrast to the spiritual wealth of any Eastern Orthodox Church.

imardmd1: If that's what you think, I doubt if you know what "spiritual" means, to tell you the truth.

Vlad: If that’s what you think, I doubt you know what the word “spiritual” means.

Well, Vlad, this "Nyah, nyah" ploy of answering may be cute, but it is not spiritual. It is soulish. And I do really know what it means to be spiritual. It is a thing of the mind, Vlad, not a gorgeous container in which to deliver a dress-up play-acting religion to a credulous, carnal audience. Here's the way Paul puts it:

=======

Re the Spiritual Mind:

1 Cor 2:14-16 AV

But the natural^soulish man receiveth not the ^{deep, v. 10} things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?
But we have the mind of Christ.
---------

Re the Mind of Christ:

Php 2:5-8 AV

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.
=======

The true Protestant Puritans put away the fancy robes, headdresses, gargoyled architecture, and in a plain meeting home or assembly hall sought the beauty of Christ, who laid aside His prerogatives and glory, to come and die a bloody mess on the engine of Romish torture. It is not clear to me that any of the statues and art and choir robes and rituals mean much to Him, if the heart has not been submitted for His cleansing power and spiritual maintenance, and is a personal friend (Jn. 15:

So please, don't harp on whether the New Testament Christian of Paul's time or my time were/are interested in any ginned-up system of quasi-holy liturgical oblations and ablutions, gymnastics or vocal trills. That kind of thing was foreign to Justin Martyr and ought to be to today's disciple, regenerated-in-the-spirit by the Holy Spirit, prepared as a utensil for the Lord's use:

Paul's counsel to Timothy re how to be spiritual:

2Ti 2:20-21 AV

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver,
but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified,
and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
======

Are you ready, Vlad, for that kind of spirituality? It's not the surface things that count, FRiend. Spirituality is not visible or tangible. The Holy Spirit is like the wind, going wherever He wishes.

And I know He's in me.

[imardmd1]

He already knows who are His and who are not

Through omniscience and foreknowledge, yes, He does, but for us it has to be recognized and experienced. Doctrine is important in evangelism, lest we presume that just any old way will do.

[imardmd1]

Finishing a sentence:

. . . and is a personal friend (Jn. 15: 14-15, 1 Cor. 1:9).

[Mark17]

Succinctly exposited. Sadly, catholic minds reject such TRUTH by sweeping it aside as ‘the interpretation of a non-Catholic.

You just described my family. They hated anyone who wasn't Catholic. I had a little hate for non Catholics, but nothing compared to the rest of my family. I think they did more to drive me away from the RCC, than anyone. I began to think there must be something better than all this hate.
One of my sisters, was vehemently against me getting born again. After a few years, however, she could see a huge change in my life, and now, she is one of the most Godly women I know, as she left the Catholic Church too. Praise God for that. I have no plans to swim the Tiber. 🌊

[Lonely Bull]

Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Perhaps if more people acted more like the tax collector than like the Pharisee, we wouldn't need to travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte.

[BlueDragon]

Oh, so divinely inspired actually just boils down to your feelings. Well, gee, of course it does. You’re a Protestant. It has nothing to do with God Himself, or His Church, or what early Christians had and used and believed.

Among the generally insulting tone, wherein you are also attributing motive (knock that off!) is the highly flawed last sentence.

There are multiple "early Christian" witnesses (must I list them all?) against the Apocryphal writing you quoted from, as being worthy of full, indiscriminate inclusion with the rest of OT.

There are many later witnesses, too, from among the Latin Church. What now? Throw Jerome under the bus, again, and with him sweep away Cardinal Catejan too?

Seven solid reasons not to

---

...Feelings, nothing
more than feelings

[boatbums]

You've really got to be kidding. If that's what you think, I doubt if you know what "spiritual" means, to tell you the truth.

If by "spiritual wealth" as has been shown in the attitude some of the self-professed wealthy individuals displayed on these threads I'd say they have deceived themselves and the truth is not in them. What kind of Christian love do they demonstrate that would attract anyone to Christ much less their particular denomination?

I thought it humorous in a way that it was claimed whatever "depth" of spirituality we non-Catholic believers have was taken from "them" - as if the ancient church leaders and their wisdom born of experience is the sole property of them and not of ALL Christians! It is similar to the boastful claims of the Bible being given to us BY them. Whatever we have, we have received from the Almighty. The best we can hope for is to be good stewards of the goodness of the Lord.

[vladimir998]

“wherein you are also attributing motive”

There was no attribution of motive. Attribution of motive would mean I said WHY he did it. I mentioned HOW he did it: “actually just boils down to your feelings.” There’s a difference. And you apparently didn’t notice.

Are you now going to post dozens of useless posts - all very long of course - where you strenuously beat not only a dead horse but the WRONG dead horse? That is your way.

“There are multiple “early Christian” witnesses (must I list them all?) against the Apocryphal writing you quoted from, as being worthy of full, indiscriminate inclusion with the rest of OT.”

And there were those who insisted they were scripture - including the Church.

[vladimir998]

“Are you ready, Vlad, for that kind of spirituality? It’s not the surface things that count, FRiend. Spirituality is not visible or tangible. The Holy Spirit is like the wind, going wherever He wishes.”

And there we see problem again with your understanding of spiritual reality Here, I’ll put it in bigger letters so maybe you’ll see it: NO ONE HERE IS TALKING ABOUT THE “SURFACE THINGS”. NO ONE HERE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT WHICH IS ONLY ‘VISIBLE OR TANGIBLE’. Well, maybe you are, but I’m not. This is exactly what I mean by the idea that you apparently don’t know what spiritual means. You, apparently, are reflexively, like Pavlov’s dog, barking out the Protestant bias against anything spiritual that doesn’t agree with your almost Cathar-like disdain for the physical.

Let me remind you of something: JESUS IS PHYSICAL. He is “visible”. He is “tangible”. Are you denying He is spiritual? Is He just a “surface thing” to you? I bet you’ll say, “Of course Jesus is spiritual” - even though you essentially just denied something could be spiritual and “visible” or “tangible”. According to your logic the crucifixion is not a spiritual event because it was “visible” or “tangible”.

The Eucharist is spiritual. Blessings are spiritual. The Eastern Orthodox way of praying is spiritual. And all of those things are also “visible” or “tangible”.

“And I know He’s in me.”

But according to your logic there can be no actual “visible” or “tangible” effect. You negate the very power of God to operate in the “visible” or “tangible” world.

By the way, the real reasons “true Protestant Puritans put away the fancy robes, headdresses, gargoyled architecture” was long ago explained by no less a Protestant authority than the Ralph Adams Cram once wrote:

“From the outbreak of the Protestant revolution, the old kinship between beauty and religion was deprecated and often forgotten. Not only was there, amongst the reformers and their adherents, a definite hatred of beauty and a determination to destroy it when found; there was also a conscientious elimination of everything of the sort from the formularies, services, and structures that applied to their new religion. This unprecedented break between religion and beauty had a good deal to do with that waning interest in religion itself. Protestantism, with its derivative materialistic rationalism, divested religion of its essential elements of mystery and wonder, and worship of its equally essential elements of beauty. Under this powerful combination of destructive influences, it is not to be wondered at that, of the once faithful, many have fallen away. Man is, by instinct, not only a lover of beauty, he is also by nature a ‘ritualist,’ that is to say, he does, when left alone, desire form and ceremony, if significant. If this instinctive craving for ceremonial is denied to man in religion, where it preeminently belongs, he takes it on for himself in secular fields; elaborates ritual in secret societies, in the fashion of his dress, in the details of social custom. He also, in desperation, invents new religions and curious sects working up for them strange rituals . . . extravagant and vulgar devices that are now the sardonic delight of the ungodly. ... If once more beauty can be restored to the offices of religion, many who are now self-excommunicated from their Church will thankfully find their way back to the House they have abandoned. The whole Catholic Faith is shot through and through with this vital and essential quality of beauty. It is this beauty implicit in the Christian revelation and its operative system that was explicit in the material and visible Churches and their art. We must contend against the strongest imaginable combination of prejudices and superstitions. These are of two sorts. There is first, the heritage of ignorance and fear from the dark ages of the sixteenth century. I am speaking of non-Catholic Christianity. Ignorance of authentic history, instigated by protagonists of propaganda; fear of beauty, because all that we now have in Christian art was engendered and formulated by and through Catholicism; fear that the acceptance of beauty means that awful thing—’surrender to superstition.’ It is fear that lies at the root of the matter, as it does in so many other fields of mental activity.” (Radio Replies, vol. 2: 1052)

[vladimir998]

“Finishing a sentence:. . . and is a personal friend (Jn. 15: 14-15, 1 Cor. 1:9).”

Finishing a thought: You deny the real Christ when you deny Him as He really is and how He really manifests Himself spiritually to His people.

[Mark17]

What kind of Christian love do they demonstrate that would attract anyone to Christ much less their particular denomination?

You are correct BB. The hate displayed by my family, was one of the things that drove me away from the RCC. It wasn't the only factor involved, but certainly was one of the factors. Praise God for that, huh?

[BlueDragon]

LOL

Now here again you try to finesse things, away from your own guilt in the matter.

Attribution of motive would mean I said WHY he did it. I mentioned HOW he did it: “actually just boils down to your feelings.” There’s a difference.

That's a mass of illogical attempt towards hair splitting that doesn't successfully split any. His "feelings" were how he did it? Typed it up with emotion there did he?

No. The assertion which boils down an individual's reason for rejecting Apocrypha to be on grounds of emotion is to attribute motive for them doing so. You did that. Plainly. Irrefutably. Own up to it.

And there were those who insisted they were scripture - including the Church.

Follow the links I provided. Read. The "early Church" did NOT "insist" the books here in contention (including the one you quoted from) were Scripture fully on par with the rest of the NT. When there was some acceptance, it was often acknowledged (down through the centuries even) that although some writings were fit to read from within Church setting, those were "ecclesiastical" writings, thus not infallibly inspired.

Your argumentative statement [above italicized] is like a snake swallowing it's own tail. You lose, again.

When are you going to give up, and convert?

[imardmd1]

. . . how He really manifests Himself spiritually to His people.

Which is? Let me guess . . . physically, in a piece of embossed flour?

You don't need to answer that. Your mind/spirit doesn't seem to be responding right now, anyway, since you haven't taken what I said seriously and for your benefit, with much care and concern.

It's on you, chum. You've been warned. By the Holy Ghost speaking to you through the Holy Scripture.

[boatbums]

“BB: (Luther) translated from Greek to common German for his German Bible.”

It wasn’t common German because there was no such thing. He used court Saxon - a particular dialect known to many princes and court officials. He wrote a Bible in a language to impress the important people of Germany. That’s far from “common German”.

Taken from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church

The German language was divided into as many dialects as tribes and states, and none served as a bond of literary union. Saxons and Bavarians, Hanoverians and Swabians, could scarcely understand each other. Each author wrote in the dialect of his district, Zwingli in his Schwyzerdütsch. "I have so far read no book or letter," says Luther in the preface to his version of the Pentateuch (1523), in which the German language is properly handled. Nobody seems to care sufficiently for it; and every preacher thinks he has a right to change it at pleasure, and to invent new terms." Scholars preferred to write in Latin, and when they attempted to use the mother tongue, as Reuchlin and Melanchthon did occasionally, they fell far below in ease and beauty of expression.

Luther brought harmony out of this confusion, and made the modern High German the common book language. He chose as the basis the Saxon dialect, which was used at the Saxon court and in diplomatic intercourse between the emperor and the estates, but was bureaucratic, stiff, heavy, involved, dragging, and unwieldy. (31) He popularized and adapted it to theology and religion. He enriched it with the vocabulary of the German mystics, chroniclers, and poets. He gave it wings, and made it intelligible to the common people of all parts of Germany.

He adapted the words to the capacity of the Germans, often at the expense of accuracy. He cared more for the substance than the form. He turned the Hebrew shekel into a Silberling, (32) the Greek drachma and Roman denarius into a German Groschen, the quadrans into a Heller, the Hebrew measures into Scheffel, Malter, Tonne, Centner, and the Roman centurion into a Hauptmann. He substituted even undeutsch (!) for barbarian in 1 Cor. 14:11. Still greater liberties he allowed himself in the Apocrypha, to make them more easy and pleasant reading. (33) He used popular alliterative phrases as Geld und Gut, Land und Leute, Rath und That, Stecken und Stab, Dornen und Disteln, matt und müde, gäng und gäbe. He avoided foreign terms which rushed in like a flood with the revival of learning, especially in proper names (as Melanchthon for Schwarzerd, Aurifaber for Goldschmid, Oecolampadius for Hausschein, Camerarius for Kammermeister). He enriched the vocabulary with such beautiful words as holdselig, Gottseligkeit. Erasmus Alber, a contemporary of Luther, called him the German Cicero, who not only reformed religion, but also the German language.

Luther's version is an idiomatic reproduction of the Bible in the very spirit of the Bible. It brings out the whole wealth, force, and beauty of the German language. It is the first German classic, as King James's version is the first English classic. It anticipated the golden age of German literature as represented by Klopstock, Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Schiller,--all of them Protestants, and more or less indebted to the Luther-Bible for their style. The best authority in Teutonic philology pronounces his language to be the foundation of the new High German dialect on account of its purity and influence, and the Protestant dialect on account of its freedom which conquered even Roman Catholic authors. (34)

Also, he clearly used previous Catholic translations in his work.

So what?

From the above link:

He at once proceeded to the more difficult task of translating the Old Testament, and published it in parts as they were ready. The Pentateuch appeared in 1523; the Psalter, 1524.

In the progress of the work he founded a Collegium Biblieum, or Bible club, consisting of his colleagues Melanchthon, Bugenhagen (Pommer), Cruciger, Justus Jonas, and Aurogallus. They met once a week in his house, several hours before supper. Deacon Georg Rörer (Rorarius), the first clergyman ordained by Luther, and his proof-reader, was also present; occasionally foreign scholars were admitted; and Jewish rabbis were freely consulted. Each member of the company contributed to the work from his special knowledge and preparation. Melanchthon brought with him the Greek Bible, Cruciger the Hebrew and Chaldee, Bugenhagen the Vulgate, others the old commentators; Luther had always with him the Latin and the German versions besides the Hebrew.

[BlueDragon]

According to your logic the crucifixion is not a spiritual event because it was “visible” or “tangible”.

Non sequitur, for the alleged logic was not his, but was instead strawman of your own construction.

explained by no less a Protestant authority than the Ralph Adams Cram

The man was an architect, not a "Protestant authority". He was an Episcopalian (of the 'High Church' sort) and lover of England's past Gothic [building] traditions.

Cram allegedly said;

This unprecedented break between religion and beauty had a good deal to do with that waning interest in religion itself.

That could not be honestly applied to the Puritans themselves.

Cram again;

If once more beauty can be restored to the offices of religion, many who are now self-excommunicated from their Church will thankfully find their way back to the House they have abandoned. The whole Catholic Faith is shot through and through with this vital and essential quality of beauty.

It should be considered here that as an Episcopalian, the man quite likely identified himself as 'Catholic', as the Church of England long has, and still does, while his own prejudices as an architect also prejudice his words. He can be dismissed. Just look at this hideous thing;

What he misses acknowledging in his screed (preserved by "Radio Replies" because it's hateful against Protestants?) is the rejection of the old architecture was not rejection of what elements of spiritual truth and beauty could therein be contained, but was rejection of the poisons which had over the centuries become thoroughly so well blended with the beautiful, that to find the beauty once again in purer, less adulterated form, one would be persuaded that they should abandon the "State" Church altogether.

That some abandon God altogether, does not mean that if they were still held bound to State Church (even upon pain of death, as had become the 'Catholic' way) they would have much of anything other than outward formalities and regulations they must subscribe to, remaining inwardly un-converted unto their own times of earthly demise.

[imardmd1]

Yeah, BB, I agree. Like a moth, I am attracted by the Light, and that Light has broken through the spiritual darkness that surrounds the ritualistic religionists and their idolatry.

That Light shines out of the pages of His Written Word and becomes visible in the eyes of a fellow Christian and his/her actions and loving communications.

Following His Ways is the path of the justified soul, and it shines more and more, day by day, until the Final Day comes. I praise God for the challenge to meet the wiles of the Devil and his minions. It challenges you and me to energeticaly search the Scriptures to see what is true and what is not.

How satisfying it is when you bring new light from an old text to edify your brothers and sisters here, that dismays the oppositionally defiant characters we meet.

In that you are converted, may the LORD keep your faith bright and use you to strengthen the Brethren!