Posted on 04/10/2017 6:40:46 PM PDT by 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]
(Excerpt) Read more at religiousresearcher.org ...
Once again you failed to show in any way that I was actually wrong.
“Now here again you try to finesse things, away from your own guilt in the matter.”
That sounds much more like a statement about attributing motive than what I posted. I had no guilt because what I said was absolutely correct. Thus, not only were you wrong, but you’re also clearly being hypocritical.
“Which is? Let me guess . . . physically, in a piece of embossed flour?”
And you think the Eucharist isn’t spiritual? Again, your logic is not logical at all.
“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.”
First of all, you can’t even make a logically coherent argument. Taking you seriously is naturally undercut by that fact.
“It’s on you, chum. You’ve been warned. By the Holy Ghost speaking to you through the Holy Scripture.”
I listened to the Holy Ghost a long time ago: That’s why I’m not a Protestant.
For the second time, let me add a hearty amen.
Once again I’ll just post the truth as I did before: Luther did not write his translation in “common German” since there was no such thing at the time. He used court Saxon.
When you post this:
“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”
you’re only proving my point.
“So what?”
Two things:
1) It shows Luther was probably less than honest regarding his own translation (the brevity of its translation, for instance).
2) It means that many Protestants whom labor under the moronic belief that Luther was the first to translated the Bible in any European language since Latin (and not just the first to do it from Greek) are ignorant.
What kind of Christian love do they demonstrate that would attract anyone to Christ much less their particular denomination?
This question is a good general question, though. I'd say that no "side" is blameless. (I don't fit comfortably in any of the usual caucus labels here.) If this thread were my only exposure to any sort of professing Christianity, I'd be thoroughly confused about Christian speech at the end of however many hours I'd spent reading this whole thing.
Doesn't it say something that the Religion Forum is probably the most tightly moderated forum here? Any blame surely cannot be solely with those other people with those erroneous views; I've seen the same tactics and same attitudes from both sides of a heated thread, and if even just one side were more consistently bridling its tongue, I (and others) would notice the difference, for "a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." People who aren't Jews or Christians can agree with that proverb--simply from watching.
Mark17 in post #275:
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?
I did choose my tagline intentionally, but it's more of a warning about our conduct than any solid pointer to the truth. The kindest and nicest people aren't always correct about how many gods exist, and "the devils also believe" "that there is one God." I've seen stories going in the other direction from yours, and I've seen even more stories of people from a professing Christian background who because of family "hate" converted to a distinctly non-Christian option altogether.
“Non sequitur, for the alleged logic was not his, but was instead strawman of your own construction.”
It’s not a non sequitur at all. A non sequitur is something “that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said”.
What I posted perfectly followed logically from what was said.
“The man was an architect, not a “Protestant authority”.”
No. He WAS a Protestant authority in regard to what he discussed. Let’s face it: You probably never even heard of him before I posted the quote from him. It was not just because he was an architect that the Anglican Breviary was dedicated to him. He “taught a generation of Americans the dignity of worship”.
Again, you probably never even heard of the man before I posted the quote from him. I’ve read some of his works and about him. What have you read?
“He was an Episcopalian (of the ‘High Church’ sort) and lover of England’s past Gothic [building] traditions.”
So you read a wikipedia page maybe, right?
“That could not be honestly applied to the Puritans themselves.”
It could be after their iconoclasm.
“He can be dismissed. Just look at this hideous thing;”
Actually, the cathedral has always been known as beautiful in its design. You apparently didn’t know that your posted picture of it was an artist’s conception. The cathedral was never finished. Cram also worked on the Nave, not the whole cathedral. This is why you have to read more than a wikipedia page Blue. Otherwise you post as you do and look just as foolish as you do. Oh, well. Maybe you’ll learn.
“...one would be persuaded that they should abandon the “State” Church altogether.”
Except the Puritans (Calvinists) were not above forming state churches themselves - here or in Europe. After all these are the same people who essentially banned Christmas celebrations unless they were of the most dour kind.
In Massachusetts Bay - which was a Puritan settlement of course - the government could try, convict, banish and imprison Puritan clergymen who committed heresy.
Under the Puritans in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland - because church and state were really one - excommunication from the Puritans’ church meant the loss of political offices and rights, legal standing in the community, and the ruining of many business and personal relationships because of official strictures and ostracism. If you didn’t repent of your heresy, your fellow Puritans could imprison you.
In Massachusetts Bay, everyone was taxed to support the Puritans’ churches. By law you had to attend church.
In the earliest days of Massachusetts Bay colony you couldn’t even vote for local government unless you were a Puritan.
That’s a state Church. A Puritan State Church.
Again, it helps to read actual books. Try some.
I see this forum is till active. So let me say I think you would have a hard time finding many who say the only reason America came to be great is because of individualism. Her degree of greatness is indeed because God has blessed the nation, but there are reasons of Godliness, if complex in detail, that He has. Which begins with exceptionally wise men, mostly Protestants and deists, who overall feared God and much reverenced Scripture and its morals and principles, and crafted a constitution which reflected that.
And because there was enough God-fearing souls who obeyed God, and people who were controlled from within so that they need not be controlled from without. All of which helped provide the character, stability, capital, and learning necessary for further development.
The individualism was not that of every man doing what is right in his own eyes, and of antipathy towards authority and a rebellious spirit, but neither was it that of autocratic leadership and a society comprising two categories of per sons, the leaders and the flock with the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the leaders, as under the classic Roman model.
Instead, the founders recognized the validity of authority, of government, while also recognizing their fallible nature and the validity of principled dissent. Which is how both the NT church and America began, but in both cases with exceptional men, and a persecuted people.
Which was a product of the somewhat hidden but permeating power of true religion which enabled America to be rather uniquely individualist yet unified.
I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection...that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation. (The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 [London: G. Robinson, 1784], p. 150; http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755#)
Washington's Farewell Address, 1797 — Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (Farewell Address, 1797; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)
John Adams (1735—July 4, 1826. Second President and one of the Founding Fathers. Assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence) — "No simply form of government can possible secure men against the violence of power...Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure,... (An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763)
.we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From a letter Adams wrote on 11 October 1798 to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, of the Massachusetts Militia).ion of the Militia of Massachusetts,” October 11, 1798. Emp.mine.)
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...
In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...
There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated, In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace...
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...
Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.
They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
• There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
A quote often attributed to Tocqueville but which is not documented by any early sources, states,
• Not until I went into the churches of American and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Benjamin Franklin (1706—1790. One of the Founding Fathers; leading thinker; author; printer; statesman; postmaster; diplomat, and a non-Christian deist) — ...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. (Benjamin Franklin, "Information to those who would Remove to America" In Franklin, Benjamin. The Bagatelles from Passy. Ed. Lopez, Claude A. New York: Eakins Press. 1967; http://mith.umd.edu//eada/html/display.php?docs=franklin_bagatelle4.xml. Also, John Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26)
Daniel Webster (1782—1852. Leading constitutional scholar/lawyer and statesman, senator from Massachusetts, Secretary of State under three presidents) — If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. (Reported in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert, Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers [1895], p. 33; http://archive.org/stream/dictionaryburni00gilbgoog/dictionaryburni00gilbgoog_djvu.txt)
• And let me say, gentlemen, that if we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God, and shall respect His commandments, if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country; and if we maintain those institutions of government and that political union, exceeding all praise as much as it exceeds all former examples of political associations,...It will go on prospering and to prosper.
But if we and our posterity reject religious institutions and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifile with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity. Should that catastrophe happen, let it have no history! (“The Dignity and Importance of History,” address to the Historical Society of New York, February 23, 1852. Source: Shewmaker, 130-137 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/dignity-history.html
The following quote is very similar to the above, and apparently first appeared in the Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bible Society (1870), p. 27, and perhaps was a condensed paraphrase of the above, expressing its thought:
• If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.
The next quote perhaps lacks early attribution, as the earliest source I have found is from a compilation of quotes first published in 1908, and without details of when and where it was said (such details I suspect were not a priority in that era):
• If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be;
If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will;
If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end." (Tryon Edwards, “A Dictionary of Thoughts: Being a Cyclopedia of Laconic Quotations from the Best Authors of the World, Both Ancient and Modern ,“1908. p. 49)
More by God's grace.
As if Prots look to Luther as a pope (nor that a pope necessarily would translate acceptably, which we know is not true) and follow his translation, like Catholics were to follow the Vulgate.
But based upon the premise that we need to go by Rome as regards translations, then we should have esteemed the
New America Bible (now somewhat revised) for decades as the main translation, despite the criticisms of many RCs.
As expected, you use selective quoting. I think you may be afraid to say anything positive about the man! The paragraph stated:
Two things: 1) It shows Luther was probably less than honest regarding his own translation (the brevity of its translation, for instance). 2) It means that many Protestants whom labor under the moronic belief that Luther was the first to translated the Bible in any European language since Latin (and not just the first to do it from Greek) are ignorant.
You really need to do a bit more study on the subject for someone who claims to be such a knowledgeable sort. From the same Schaff source:
If he had done nothing else, he would be one of the greatest benefactors of the German-speaking race. (1) His version was followed by Protestant versions in other languages, especially the French, Dutch, and English. The Bible ceased to be a foreign book in a foreign tongue, and became naturalized, and hence far more clear and dear to the common people. Hereafter the Reformation depended no longer on the works of the Reformers, but on the book of God, which everybody could read for himself as his daily guide in spiritual life. This inestimable blessing of an open Bible for all, without the permission or intervention of pope and priest, marks an immense advance in church history, and can never be lost.
“As expected, you use selective quoting.”
Nope. I said there was no “common German” - which you claimed. And there wasn’t a common German - which is what I said.
I said he used court Saxon. Did you even know that before this thread?
“made the modern High German the common book language”
And where did I say otherwise? I never mentioned “modern High German” or “common book language” so there’s no selective quoting going on except on your part. Seriously, how do you think you’re going just make up things like that?
“He gave it wings, and made it intelligible to the common people of all parts of Germany.”
And, again, where did I ever say otherwise? Honestly, can you read? Saying there was no “common German” in his day and that he used “court Saxon” does not mean he did not shape the German dialect into a standardized form that would become Modern High German. Do you understand how pointing out the former DOES NOT negate the latter?
“I think you may be afraid to say anything positive about the man!”
I’m not afraid to say something positive about him. I just don’t think the positives out weigh the negatives. About a Christian man its hard to say his influence on orthography, morphology and syntax somehow outweighs his heresy and schism. Does helping standardize a language really blot out heresy?
I've never seen anyone say that here but I agree that people ought to check their facts before they post them on a forum. By the same token, there are many Catholics whom ignorantly labor under the mistaken (I'll not call them moronic) belief that Martin Luther also cut books from the New Testament canon as well as from the Old Testament. It would be pleasant to not have to constantly correct that on these threads.
Additionally, Luther was not and never has been considered the "pope" of Protestants nor is he the "founder". You have said in the past everyone who is a non-Catholic Christian is a Protestant. These mistaken ideas would also be nice to dispel for once.
Have a blessed Easter.
But it followed only the strawman of your own manufacture.
Goodbye. I'm not going to deal with a single other thing you had to say in this reply. It's not worth it. You're still wrong and will stay that way (until you repent--turn around and go the other way).
Goodbye.
And transubstantiation is logical? It is certainly not Scriptural. The challenge to you from Paul was both logical and Spiritual. Not mine. Paul's. The Apostle. Apparently your integrator is not working properly.
And "Protestant"? I am not one of them. I am a New-Testament-configured-regenerated-believer-disciple-priest, and friend of the Savior and Lord Jesus Crist, the kind demanded and exemplified long before the novelty of Catholicism was invented by humans circumventing God's plan of salvation.
Don't lecture me on logic or spirituality, when all you have is reasonings, like the people God once drowned (Gen. 6:5, Mk. 2:6, 2 Cor. 10:5).
“By the same token, there are many Catholics whom ignorantly labor under the mistaken (I’ll not call them moronic) belief that Martin Luther also cut books from the New Testament canon as well as from the Old Testament.”
Maybe Luther should not have said disparaging things about certain books - especially James - which seemed to cast doubt on their canonicity. Also, I think many Catholics simply assume Protestants are telling the truth about each Luther: http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/martin-luther-changed-andor-discounted-18-books-of-the-bible/ Perhaps Catholics should never trust Protestants to tell the truth about anything?
So, when this Protestant site says Luther wrote, “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it” about the Book of Revelation, you don’t think that is the same thing as saying a book is NOT inspired? And if a book is in Luther’s Bible, but he denies it was produced by the Holy Spirit, is it still part of Luther’s canon? http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
“But it followed only the strawman of your own manufacture.”
No. There was no strawman. Jesus is spiritual. He is also concretely physical. Thus, for someone to even hint that there can be no connection between the physical and the spiritual denies basic realities which Christianity has always embraced.
“Goodbye. I’m not going to deal with a single other thing you had to say in this reply. It’s not worth it. You’re still wrong and will stay that way (until you repent—turn around and go the other way).”
No, actually I’m absolutely right about the issues raised to me in the thread. You can’t argue against anything I have said effectively apparently. And I refuse to turn away from Christ as you suggest.
“Goodbye.”
You have a Happy Easter, Blue. And remember, the resurrection in itself, is proof that there is a connection between the physical and spiritual.
More than a few Catholics of his own era, and near to it, did similarly.
As usual, your words backfire. It's a pity you can't see it.
“And transubstantiation is logical?”
It’s as logical as the virgin birth, or creation out of nothing, or the resurrection of the dead.
“It is certainly not Scriptural.”
Sure it is. Again, just like the virgin birth, or creation out of nothing, or the resurrection of the dead.
“The challenge to you from Paul was both logical and Spiritual. Not mine. Paul’s. The Apostle. Apparently your integrator is not working properly.”
St. Paul clearly believes in the Eucharist as Christ’s Body and Blood. (1 Corinthians 11:29)
“And “Protestant”? I am not one of them.”
Yes, you are.
“I am a New-Testament-configured-regenerated-believer-disciple-priest, and friend of the Savior and Lord Jesus Crist, the kind demanded and exemplified long before the novelty of Catholicism was invented by humans circumventing God’s plan of salvation.”
You’re a Protestant. Claiming, in your own words (which are actually patterned after those of others), some sort of restorationist standing only shows just how Protestant (and recent) your beliefs are.
“Don’t lecture me on logic or spirituality,”
Okay, I’ll just keep showing you your errors. I don’t mind doing it and you apparent;y don’t mind making them.
“when all you have is reasonings, like the people God once drowned (Gen. 6:5, Mk. 2:6, 2 Cor. 10:5).”
More like Isaiah 1:18.
Could this not be asked of many RCC practices and beliefs?
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.