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 ...
We'll see who is kinky.
Editor-surveyor: Yeshua himself had to be changed in exactly the manner that he told Nicodemus was necessary for the salvation of mortal men. Post #573 comment re Post #570
Your opinion, without proof. Ex cathedra, as usual?
Explain how your opinion coincides with and confirms what MHGinTN said in Post #570, to show that your inference from Scripture is consistent with commonly understood interpretations of Jesus' pre-Cross exchange with Nicodemus, as well as the post-resurrection descriptions of Jesus' external appearance.
I think you mean as regarding the elements of the Remembrance Supper. Other phases of the worship gathering employing unbloody sacrifices are indicated:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies1 a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,
which is your reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1 KJBOnline).
"By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God2 continually, that is,
the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
But to do good3 and to communicate*4 forget not: for with such sacrifices
God is well pleased" (Heb. 13:15,16 KJBOnline)
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual**5sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5) ========
* "to communicate" in the KJB English of 1611 AD means specifically to help another with material gifts of goods or money for their needs, or for the funding of another assembly or para-church ministry. See Gal. 6:6; Php. 4:14,15,18; 1 Tim. 6:18.
** "spiritual" here means not consisting of earthly material, such as bread or blood of the grape.
Some forms of NT-based religion get tangled up with the sacrifices descibed in Leviticus 7:12, but God was not pleased with those, the literal substitutional death of Jesus as the only acceptable replaced and did away with those OT forms, by the offering of His Blood and Body once, forever, not to be repeated.
Just jogging your memory, MM. As you know, these unbloody sacrifices are not described as "sacraments" and I think God makes note of them--they are another form of remembering Jesus' love for us as we demonstrate our love of God to others.
The *almost all things* was referring to the physical articles used in the temple sacrifices, which you would have realized if you had read the previous verses.
And again, since the sacrifice of Calvary was very bloody, and the Catholic church claims that it’s participating in the same sacrifice, it CANNOT then be unbloody.
It doesn’t matter what other sacrifices are unbloody, the very fact that the Catholic church calls mass unbloody proves it to not be the same one as Jesus as they are claiming.
Likewise, for your claims to have been a Protestant, we don't have any reason to believe that you were ever a Prot.
Your say so certainly isn't enough
I have gone to Catholic church, catechism classes, and worked with Catholics with the same kind of nasty level as you display.
Your home grown nastiness is too representative of what I have seen and encountered in Catholics to believe that it came from somewhere else.
And if it did, I can see why you were attracted to Catholicism.
Context and Roman Catholicism are polar opposites.
He may have WANTED to; but only ROME had the POWER to do so.
The Apocrypha of Rome is CERTAINLY different than that of Jerusalem!
I've seen NO evidence that our FR Catholics do any research into ANYTHING other than what is Rome approved.
The idols of Mary Catholics kneel before and pray before/ to say otherwise.
The consecration prayers to Mary say otherwise.
The overwhelming emphasis the Catholic places on Mary says otherwise.
The false beliefs in the 15 promises of the Rosary say otherwise.
The belief "that all who die wearing the Scapular will not suffer the eternal flames of hell." says otherwise.
There's more as you know.
Which is why context is never used in Catholicism.
Verses are isolated and taken out of context continually.
It’s not the Catholic Church that censored the Deuterocanonicals: no Catholic, then or now, would have dared claim the right to chuck books right out of the Bible.
I’m glad all y’all still have Hebrews, Revelation and James. No thanks to Father Luther!
As for his Jew-hatred, that's a foul vice that's been present in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant communities since the earliest polemical writings. I hate to read of St. Cyril of Alexandria, for instance, who was an overt antisemite and is honored as a Father of the Church!
But I know Cyril had his good points, as did Luther.
So I hereby again apologize for the aggressive tone, and hope to benefit by your prayers so I will do better in the future.
That much is clear. However it goes beyond 'not accepting' the NT. You appear to not be interested in the actual message of the NT and emplace your own understanding of such.
Here's another short sermon from Charles Spurgeon which gives us a synopsis:
That through death He might destroy him that had the power of death.
—Hebrews 2:14
O child of God, death hath lost its sting, because the devil's power over it is destroyed. Then cease to fear dying. Ask grace from God the Holy Ghost, that by an intimate knowledge and a firm belief of thy Redeemer's death, thou mayst be strengthened for that dread hour. Living near the cross of Calvary thou mayst think of death with pleasure, and welcome it when it comes with intense delight. It is sweet to die in the Lord: it is a covenant-blessing to sleep in Jesus. Death is no longer banishment, it is a return from exile, a going home to the many mansions where the loved ones already dwell. The distance between glorified spirits in heaven and militant saints on earth seems great; but it is not so. We are not far from home-a moment will bring us there. The sail is spread; the soul is launched upon the deep. How long will be its voyage?
How many wearying winds must beat upon the sail ere it shall be reefed in the port of peace? How long shall that soul be tossed upon the waves before it comes to that sea which knows no storm? Listen to the answer, "Absent from the body, present with the Lord." Yon ship has just departed, but it is already at its haven. It did but spread its sail and it was there. Like that ship of old, upon the Lake of Galilee, a storm had tossed it, but Jesus said, "Peace, be still," and immediately it came to land.
Think not that a long period intervenes between the instant of death and the eternity of glory. When the eyes close on earth they open in heaven. The horses of fire are not an instant on the road. Then, O child of God, what is there for thee to fear in death, seeing that through the death of thy Lord its curse and sting are destroyed? and now it is but a Jacob's ladder whose foot is in the dark grave, but its top reaches to glory everlasting.
MHGinTN "...Since catholics believe the priests of their religion can call Jesus in His glorified state down from Heaven, to be sacrificed continually in His pre-risen state at the catholic altar.."Mrs. Don-o "This is false in every part."
You parsed what I wrote, what you responded, and sought to direct me to the Catholic Catechism (which I have read regarding the Liturgy), ignoring the reference to O'Brien's book, which has been quoted many times at FR on these threads.
It is looking more and more like you are avoiding answering what I posted which you accused me of posting falsehoods about your religion. So far, you have not shown which or how these points I raised are false.
When a Catholic is asked which body the priests of that religion continue to sacrifice at their altars, they confront a conundrum which cannot be logically answered given their religion's assertions regarding the Mass.
At the moment of the Rapture, dead Christians raised from the grave and still alive Christians will be changed in the twinkling of an eye, so that we will be properly outfitted for Heaven dwelling. Jesus ascending to the Throne Room of The Father Almighty, not in a bloody body but in a Glorified body. Which Jesus body do catholic priests in their 'other religion' sacrifice at their catholic altars?
Got it. For Jesus, and for us when we become like him, life is in the Spirit. Thanks for illuminating this.
What I noted was simply factual: you have posted mistaken information about Catholic beliefs. I do not assume that this is deliberate on your part. I suppose it to be an innocent mistake.
Your principal misunderstanding of the Mass is that Jesus is believed to be re-sacrificed repeatedly. This is untrue. Jesus' sacrifice was once and for all. It happened once in history, in time. It does have a timeless aspect, first because Jesus is God, and also, Scripture says He is the "Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:9)
When we participate in the Mass, we are participating in this as a single, unrepeated, eternally-present reality.
To make it brief, E-S, the power of the Holy Spirit is not subject to the will of a human, as you suggest. I get up in the morning when the sun rises, not vice versa. Likewise, the powers of an obedient human is guided by the clear will of the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, be advised that the supernatural powers exercised by Jesus and given to His first-generation of disciples to validate their commission as Apostles to teach the doctrine and administer the healing they heard and saw as eye-witnesses. Those powers are no longer given to humans since the completion and closing of the Divine Book, the Bible which is the Word of God. That kind of power is no longer distributed among men. Instead, we have the command to obey the ordinances. Now, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17).
"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord,
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak" (Heb. 2:3-5 AV).
It always was, and now is God alone that directs such powers, not even angels. much less we, the regenerated Christians to whom it is given to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2 AV) for the time has come when all sorts of phonies will be out there promoting false doctrines such as yours.
And, as far as "laying on of hands," the number of times humans posing as "priests" have "laid their hands" on "lay" people, and found that some of these thus designated people not only did not fulfill the expectations of salvation-by-paedobaptisn or "confirmation" but moreover became professional criminals and murderers as well. So, maybe if, as you maintain, the transfer of the power of The Spirit by laying on of hands, how does that reversal of effect happen?
=======
What I wrote is the doctrine culled from the Scripture, agreeing with the context, and in agreement with several fine commenting scholars: Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, the Jamieson-Fassett-Brown Commentary, Marvin Vincent's "Word Studies," etc.
I'll stack them up against you, any day:
----------
Adam Clarke -- maintains that the baptisms and laying on of hands is emblematic, symbolic of something supposed to have happened, but not an instrument of causing the "gift" of God to happen.
Hebrews 6:2
Of the doctrine of baptisms - "There were two things," says Dr. Owen,
"peculiar to the Gospel, the doctrine of it and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Doctrine is
called baptism, Deut. 32:2; hence the people are said to be baptized to Moses, when
they were initiated into his doctrines, 1 Cor. 11:2. The baptism of John was his
doctrine, Acts 19:3; and the baptism of Christ was the doctrine of Christ, wherewith
he was to sprinkle many nations, Isa. 52:15. This is the first baptism of the Gospel,
even its doctrine. The other was the communication of the gifts of the Holy Ghost,
Acts 1:5; and this alone is what is intended by the laying on of hands; and then the
sense will be the foundation of the Gospel baptisms, namely preaching and the gifts
of the Holy Ghost."
I am afraid, with all this great man’s learning, he has not hit the meaning of the
apostle. As teaching is the means by which we are to obtain the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, surely the apostle never designed to separate them, but to lead men
immediately through the one to the possession of the other. Nor is the word baptism
mentioned in the passage in Deuteronomy which he quotes; nor, indeed, any word
properly synonymous. Neither βαπτισμος, baptism, ῥαντισμος, sprinkling, nor any
verb formed from them, is found in the Septuagint, in that place. But the other proofs
are sufficiently in point, viz. that by baptism in the other places referred to, doctrine
or Teaching is meant; but to call Teaching one baptism, and the gifts of The Holy
Ghost another baptism, and to apply this to the explanation of the difficulty here, is
very far from being satisfactory.
I am inclined to think that all the terms in this verse, as well as those in the former, belong to the Levitical law, and are to be explained on that ground.
Baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, sprinklings, and washings, were frequent as religious rites among the Hebrews, and were all emblematical of that purity which a holy God requires in his worshippers, and without which they cannot be happy here, nor glorified in heaven.
Laying on of hands - Was also frequent, especially in sacrifices: the person
bringing the victim laid his hands on its head, confessed his sins over it, and then
gave it to the priest to be offered to God, that it might make atonement for his
transgressions. This also had respect to Jesus Christ, that Lamb of God who takes
away the sins of the world.
The doctrine also of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment, were both
Jewish, but were only partially revealed, and then referred to the Gospel. Of the
resurrection of the dead there is a fine proof in Isa. 26:19, where it is stated to be the
consequence of the death and resurrection of Christ, for so I understand the words,
Thy dead shall live; with my dead body shall they arise: awake and sing, ye that
dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the
dead. The valley of dry bones, Ezek. 37:1, etc., is both an illustration and proof of it.
And Daniel has taught both the resurrection and the eternal judgment, Dan. 12:2 :
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Now the foundation of all these doctrines was laid in the Old Testament, and they
were variously represented under the law, but they were all referred to the Gospel
for their proof and illustration. The apostle, therefore, wishes them to consider the
Gospel as holding forth these in their full spirit and power. It preaches,
1. Repentance, unto life.
2. Faith in God through Christ, by whom we receive the atonement.
3. The baptism by water, in the name of the holy Trinity; and the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
4. The imposition of hands, the true sacrificial system; and, by and through it, the communication of the various gifts of the Holy Spirit, for the instruction of mankind, and the edification of the Church.
5. The resurrection of the dead, which is both proved and illustrated by the resurrection of Christ.
6. The doctrine of the eternal or future judgment, which is to take place at the bar of Christ himself, God having committed all judgment to his Son, called here κριμα αιωνιον, eternal or ever during judgment, because the sentences then pronounced shall be irreversible.
Some understand the whole of the initiation of persons into the Church, as the
candidates for admission were previously instructed in those doctrines which
contained the fundamental principles of Christianity. The Hebrews had already
received these; but should they Judaize, or mingle the Gospel with the law, they
would thereby exclude themselves from the Christian Church, and should they be
ever again admitted, they must come through the same gate, or lay a second time,
παλιν, this foundation. But should they totally apostatize from Christ, and finally
reject him, then it would be impossible to renew them again to repentance - they
could no more be received into the Christian Church, nor have any right to any
blessing of the Gospel dispensation; and, finally rejecting the Lord who bought them,
would bring on themselves and their land swift destruction. See the 4th and following
verses, and particularly the notes on Heb. 6:8-9 (note).
----------
Albert Barnes -- also calls human-conducted baptisms and laying-on-of-hands emblematic, like the furniture of the OT Tabernacle "figures of the True" (Heb. 9:9) that could not perfect the applier or the suppliant. It was a matter of faith, not works.
Of the doctrine of baptisms - This is mentioned as the third element or
principle of the Christian religion. The Jews made much of various kinds of
"washings," which were called "baptisms;" see the note on Mk. 7:4. It is supposed
also, that they were in the practice of baptizing proselytes to their religion; see the
note on Mt. 3:6. Since they made so much of various kinds of ablution, it was
important that the true doctrine on the subject should be stated as one of the
elements of the Christian religion, that they might be recalled from superstition, and
that they might enjoy the benefits of what was designed to be an important aid to
piety - the true doctrine of baptisms. It will be observed that the plural form is used
here - “baptisms.” There are two baptisms whose necessity is taught by the Christian
religion - baptism by water, and by the Holy Spirit; the first of which is an emblem of
the second.
These are stated to be among the "elements" of Christianity, or the things which
Christian converts would first learn. The necessity of both is taught. He that
believeth and is "baptized" shall be saved; Mk. 16:16. "Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," Jn. 3:5*. On the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, see the Mt. 3:11 note; Acts 1:5 note; compare Acts 19:1-6.
To understand the true doctrine respecting baptism was one of the first principles to
be learned then as it is now, as baptism is the rite by which we are “initiated” into the
Church. This was supposed to be so simple that young converts could understand it
as one of the elements of the true religion, and the
teaching on that subject now
should be made so plain that the humblest disciple
may comprehend it. If it was an
element or first principle of religion; if it was
presumed that anyone who entered the
Church could understand it, can it be
believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made
now? Can it be believed that a vast array of learning, and a knowledge of
languages and a careful inquiry into the customs of ancient times, was needful
in order that a candidate for baptism should understand it? The truth is, that it
was probably regarded as among the most simple and plain matters of religion;
and every convert was supposed to understand that the application of water to
the body in this ordinance, in any mode, was designed to be merely
emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit.
xxxxx
Note here * Jn. 3:5 is not to me the correct interpretation. The genuine figurative use of "water" in this verse corresponds to "the washing of water by the Word" which is the regeneration proceeding from the application of the truths of the Word to one's conscience to produce faith in the supplicant.
xxxxx
And of laying on of hands - This is the Fourth element or principle of religion. The Jews practiced the laying on of hands on a great variety of occasions. It was
done when a blessing was imparted to anyone; when prayer was made for one; and
when they offered sacrifice they laid their hands on the head of the victim,
confessing their sins; Lev. 16:21; Lev. 24:14; Num. 8:12. It was done on occasions
of solemn consecration to office, and when friend supplicated the divine favor on
friend. In like manner, it was often done by the Saviour and the apostles. The
Redeemer laid his hands on children to bless them, and on the sick when he healed
them; Mt. 19:13; Mk. 5:23; Mt. 9:18. In like manner the apostles laid hands on others
in the following circumstances:
(1) In healing the sick; Acts 28:8.
(2) in ordination to office; 1 Tim. 5:22; Acts 6:6.
(3) In imparting the miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit; Acts 8:17, Acts 8:19; Acts 19:6.
The true doctrine respecting the design of laying on the hands, is said here to be
one of the elements of the Christian religion. That the custom of laying on the
hands as symbolical of imparting spiritual gifts, prevailed in the Church in the time
of the apostles, no one can doubt. But on the question whether it is to be
regarded as of perpetual obligation in the Church, we are to remember:
(1) That the apostles were endowed with the power of imparting the influences of the
Holy Spirit in a miraculous or extraordinary manner. It was with reference to such an
imparting of the Holy Spirit that the expression is used in each of the cases where it
occurs in the New Testament.
(2) the Saviour did not appoint the imposition of the hands of a "bishop" to be one of
the rites or ceremonies to be observed perpetually in the Church. The injunction to
be baptized and to observe his supper is positive, and is universal in its obligation.
But there is no such command respecting the imposition of hands.
(3) no one now is intrusted with the power of imparting the Holy Spirit in that
manner. There is no class of officers in the Church, that can make good their
claim to any such power. What evidence is there that the Holy Spirit is imparted at
the rite of "confirmation?"
(4) it is liable to be abused, or to lead persons to substitute the form for the thing; or
to think that because they have been "confirmed," that therefore they are sure of the
mercy and favor of God.
Still, if it be regarded as a "simple form of admission to a church," without claiming
that it is enjoined by God, or that it is connected with any authority to impart the Holy
Spirit, no objection can be made to it any more than there need be to any other form
of recognizing Church membership. Every pastor has a right, if he chooses, to lay
his hands on the members of his flock, and to implore a blessing on them; and such
an act on making a profession of religion would have much in it that would be
appropriate and solemn.
------------
Jamieson, Fassett, and Brown
Hebrews 6:2
the doctrine of baptisms -- paired with "laying on of hands," as the latter followed on Christian baptism, and answers to the rite of confirmation in Episcopal churches. Jewish believers passed, by an easy transition, from Jewish baptismal purifications (Heb. 9:10, "washings"), baptism of proselytes, and John’s baptism, and legal imposition of hands, to their Christian analogues, baptism, and the subsequent laying on of hands, accompanied by the gift of the Holy Ghost (compare Heb. 6:4). Greek, "baptismoi," plural, including Jewish and Christian baptisms, are to be distinguished from baptisma, singular, restricted to Christian baptism. The six particulars here specified had been, as it were, the Christian Catechism of the Old Testament; and such Jews who had begun to recognize Jesus as the Christ immediately on the new light being shed on these fundamental particulars, were accounted as having the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ [Bengel]. The first and most obvious elementary instruction of Jews would be the teaching them the typical significance of their own ceremonial law in its Christian fulfillment [Alford].
----------
Marvin Vincent's "Word Studies"
Hebrews 6:2
Doctrine of baptisms (βαπτισμῶν διδαχὴν)
Not laying again as a foundation the teaching (διδαχὴν) of baptisms. βαπτισμός only
here, Heb. 9:10, and Mk. 7:4. The common form is βάπτισμα. Neither word in lxx or
Class. The meaning here is lustral rites in general, and may include the baptism of
John and Christian baptism. The teaching would cover all such rites, their relations
and comparative significance, and it would be necessary in the case of a Jewish
convert to Christianity who might not perceive, for example, any difference between
Jewish lustrations and Christian baptism. Laying on of hands
See on 1Tim. 4:14. A Jewish and a Christian practice.
***
1 Timothy 4:14
The gift that is in thee (τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος)
Comp. 2 Tim. 1:6. Χάρισμα gift is a distinctively Pauline word, being found only three
times outside of Paul's Epistles, and olxx, oClass. See on Rom_1:11. That is in
thee, comp. τῆς ἐν σοὶ πίστεως the faith that is in thee, 2Ti_1:5. The meaning is the
special inward endowment which qualified Timothy for exhortation and teaching, and
which was directly imparted by the Holy Spirit.
By prophecy (διὰ προφητείας)
See on 1Tim. 1:18. Προφητείας genitive, not accusative. The meaning is by the
medium of prophecy. The reference is to prophetic intimation given to Paul
concerning the selection of Timothy for the ministerial office. These prophecies were
given by the Holy Spirit who bestowed the “gift”, so that the gift itself and the prophecy concurred in attesting the candidate for ordination.
With the laying on of the hands (μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν)
Μετὰ implies that the prophetic intimations were in some way repeated or
emphasized in connection with the ceremony of ordination. We note the association
of prophecy with ordination in the setting apart of Paul and Barnabas (Act_13:9,
Acts 13:3); so that the case of Timothy has an analogue in that of Paul himself.
Ἑπίθεσις laying on, imposition, also Acts 8:18; 2 Tim. 1:6; Heb. 6:2, in each case with
of hands. "The custom," says Lange, "is as old as the race." The Biblical custom
rests on the conception of the hand as the organ of mediation and transference. The
priest laid his hand on the head of the bullock or goat (Lev. 1:4) to show that the guilt
of the people was transferred. The hand was laid on the head of a son, to indicate
the transmission of the hereditary blessing (Gen. 48:14); upon one appointed to a
position of authority, as Joshua (Num. 27:18-23); upon the sick or dead in token of
miraculous power to heal or to restore to life (2 Ki. 4:34). So Christ (Mar_6:5; Lk. 4:40).
In the primitive Christian church the laying on of hands signified the imparting
of the Holy Spirit to the newly-baptized (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6; comp.
Heb. 6:2).
Hands were laid upon the seven (Acts 6:6). But the form of consecration in
ordination varied. No one mode has been universal in the church, and no
authoritative written formula exists. In the Alexandrian and Abyssinian churches it
was by breathing: in the Eastern church generally, by lifting up the hands in
benediction: in the Armenian church, by touching the dead hand of the predecessor:
in the early Celtic church, by the transmission of relics or pastoral staff: in the Latin church, by touching the head.
Of the presbytery (τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου)
The word is found in Lk. 22:66, where it denotes the body of representative elders of
the people in the Sanhedrim, as distinguished from the two other constituents of that
body - the chief priests and scribes. Similarly Acts 22:5. Here of the college or
fraternity of Christian elders in the place where Timothy was ordained. The word is
frequent in the Epistles of Ignatius. According to this, Timothy was not ordained by a
Bishop. Bishop and Presbyter are not identical. In 2 Tim. 1:6 we read, “by
the laying on of my hands." The inconsistency is usually explained by saying that
Paul was associated with the Presbyters in the laying on of hands.
==========
What I think we have here, E-S, is an argument that refutes your puffery, though it my not convict you of error. It will convince the readers of this reply to the effect that you are once more shown to be the "twister," and not I or the commentators and Scripture backing up what I told you.
But thanks for the opportunity to school you, and for the reason of your obstinate obdurance to do it at length so it does not have to be done again, for you or anyone else trusting in your views.
The other thing this approach does is to cast a great deal of doubt that a greasy Orthodox thumb will impart the gift of the Holy Ghost to anybody, let alone the flip-flopper Hank Hanegraaff. Toodle-oo, pal!
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.