Evangelical Apologist Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy

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]

Not the same. Read thoroughly what I posted, a direct faithful copy of what Vincent had to say about it.

From your post 810 "From Vincent's "Word Studies":

The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated "dogs" by the Jews, see Mat. 15:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.

there are two principal nouns preceding the pronoun "them" and obviously Vincent, meant the pronoun "them" refers to the antecedent noun "the Jews."
the first mention of the term "dogs," which Vincent notes was by "the Jews" was actually made by the Messiah of Israel to a Gentile woman; odd that Vincent blames "the Jews" for what Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, said as if "the Jews" were responsible for what He said.
there are no scriptural instances in the New Testament of Jews other than the Messiah or the Apostle Paul using the term
those to whom the Apostle Paul addressed the term were Jewish Christian teachers who went to the Gentiles and interfered with the teaching authority of the one holy catholic apostolic church which decreed at Jerusalem that the Gentiles who turned to God did not have to keep all the Law of Moses that was applicable to the Jews
these false teachers were not called "dogs" because they were Jews, but rather because they actively undermined the faith and practice of the one holy catholic apostolic church.
in that respect they were the first protestants, interpreting the scriptures for themselves to teach error against the revealed truth of the one holy catholic apostolic church and thereby putting souls in jeopardy.
Thus it was not being Jewish that made the Apostle call them "dogs" but their behavior as false teachers.

Nicolaitanism has nothing to do with the Gentile proselyte deacon Nicolas. Nicolaitanism has everything to do with inserting a priestly class into a single-class. That would be men that wish to control organizational dynamics in order to secure a structure for irresistible control over the common people, an absolute oligarchy or dictatorship.

In the emerging New Testament churches, nicolaitans were the power-grabbers that desired to reinstitute the priestly class as a carry-over from the old Jewish religion; another title for it is "supersessionism," or "replacement theology." They would be Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, or Constantine I, or Augustine.

Is that clear?

I understand your theory and do not find it supported by scriptural evidence or early tradition. The reference to the "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" is juxtaposed with the "doctrine of Balaam." Had you argued they were equivalent I would have to grant you consistency in trying to form your tradition from the meaning of the names.

However, Balaam was a real prophet and he has a history. Similarly, there is a deacon named Nicolas in Acts. The tradition that it was not called "the doctrine of Nicolas" because it did not really reflect Nicolas' error but rather that of his followers who misinterpreted him fits the peculiar use of the two names. As it is, the Nicolaitans remain shrouded by mystery.

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Revelation, Catholic chapter, Protestant verses fourteen to fifteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

They keep trying to ignore it, but all you need is the name that tells you the game:

=====

There's A Ring To The Name of . . . Rose!

What's in a name? said Shakespeare,
So spoke his boy Romeo
He said a rose would be the same
And smell as sweet by any other name.
I don't agree with Shakespeare
And I'm a real Romeo
I hate to fight with Shakespeare
But there's one thing I know:

(Chorus:)
There's a ring to the name of Rosie,
A ring (ting-a-ling) to the name of Rosie.
Other names you may say ring true,
So they do, but they ring for you.
I still cling to the name of Rosie,
There's something to the name of Rosie,
That gives our hearts that ring a posie,
Think it sounds so mellow to me and cozy.
Ting-a-ling, ling-a-ling,
There's a ring to the name of Ro-o-o-ose!

------

George M. Cohan, 1923

=====

I would never believe in an enterprise where a bunch of nicolaitans with tall hats try to keep you from talking with The Boss or reading His Memos without their permission.

1 Corinthians 11:3,4 AV

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having ~~his~~ head covered,
dishonoureth his (H)ead^{(which is Christ, not a priest; my note)}."

those to whom the Apostle Paul addressed the term were Jewish Christian teachers who went to the Gentiles and interfered with the teaching authority of the one holy catholic apostolic church which decreed at Jerusalem that the Gentiles who turned to God did not have to keep all the Law of Moses that was applicable to the Jews

Wrong.

In the first years the churches had not yet the written and compiled form of the New Covenant, nor had they been corrupted by the dogs of Christians who were yet clinging to Hebrew traditions like circumcision and a class of priests to "go behind the altar" to mediate for the supplicant, thus stealing the New Testament concept that by Christ's ripping through the Veil, the way was made for every child of God without needing a nicolaitan priest mediator or physical circumcision. Thus the churches were not yet overwhelmed by the corruptive nicolaitan catholicity.

In the true independent, autonomous immersionist Biblical New-Testament-identifying churches of then and of today, anyone trying to come in and preach a system of catholicity and apostolic succession would be sent packing, and that with a prejudice rightly deserved.

Vincent is right, and Clarke is right, and Darby is right on that passage.

The longer your Points 1 to 7 argument goes, the more it falls apart, clutching for straws of venom rather than rationality.

... nor had they been corrupted by the dogs of Christians who were yet clinging to Hebrew traditions like circumcision ...

Circumcision is not just a Hebrew tradition, it is a commandment of God. Commandments of God are not just Hebrew traditions, they are the Word of God. The one holy catholic apostolic church with the Holy Spirit decided which commandments did, and did not, apply to the Gentiles who turned to God. Notice that immediately after this the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy, because his mother was a Jewess and his father was a Gentile. The issue of "dogs" was not Christians who were yet clinging to Hebrew traditions like circumcision but rather false Christian teacherss who refused to accept the authority of the one holy catholic apostolic church and were subverting the souls of their hearers by telling the Gentiles they were required to be circumcised and follow all the law of Moses to be saved.

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Genesis, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verses nine to fourteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty,
Acts, Catholic chapter fifteen, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty nine,
Acts, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses one to five,
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

I understand your theory and do not find it supported by scriptural evidence . . .

The only "tradition" that counts is that which is negative: There were no "priests" in the early churches--only elders and overseers--and there was no catholicity recorded while the Apostles were yet alive to prevent it from happening.

. . . or early tradition.

Well, the nicolaitan victors got to write the history, didn't they? and hide behind their interpretation of it, eh?

But, as the Spirit saith, it is not hard for a (hu)man to overcome nikolaitanism, simply by refusing to participate in it, going on to eat of the Tree of Life by reading the Word of Life, by escaping the second death through trusting in Jesus' Cross-victory over death, by allowing no one to prevent one from eating of the hidden manna who is The Christ on His Throne, holding fast to that which w have which is synagogueing with an autonomous local assembly that has The Christ Alone as its head, walking with the few still clothed in white while proclaiming the testimony of Christ to one another and to the world of people, keeping the crown of moral purity in its place, craving the eye-salve of discernment of the golden trove of Scriptural Truth, and keeping the door of prayer open by responding in prayer to The Father's summons into fellowship of His Dear Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

A hundred thousand nicolaitans cannot bar this access to the abundant, reigning life in the Spirit.

Again, you are trying to escape to the obvious by being oblivious to the motive behind Timothy's circumcision. It was not necessary at all that Timothy be circumcised to become a Christian, as the Christian Jews, the "dogs" referred to in Philippians 2:3, would have insisted, and for which the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 was convened. Timothy had not been circumsized in infancy because his Greek father and Jewish mother knew that the Hellenic culture despised this--to them--mutilation of the human body, the perfection of which was one of their standards of acceptance. To them, circumcision would be equivalent to what we see in such Islamic mutilation of female genitalia today.

The reason Paul desired this, and Timothy and his mother permitted it was so that Timothy would be accepted in the synagogues to which Paul first turned to propound the gospel of Christ. But later, Paul saw that this approach was not working, that it caused unconvertible orthodox Jews to turn against him in rage, beating him to within an inch of his life. Finally, at Philippi, he saw that a direct approach to the Gentiles without first trying to engage the local synagogue was a better and more profitable strategy, and there is where his first really faithful church was planted.

Now, what is it that you do not seem to grasp about the fact that the predominantly Gentile Philippians-to whom he issued the warning about the Jewish incompletely Christianized "dogs"--were as Gentiles already considered "dogs" by the whole body of orthodox Jews, eh?

The attempt to use Jesus' dealing with the Grecian Syrophoenecian woman just does not apply i the exegesis of Philippians 2:3, so please stop this repetitive error in debate.

The rest of your post thus becomes meaningless and irrelevant thereby. Your effort is lost in the mire of illogic. Had there not been spiritually immature Jewish Christians (one is Jewish bu inheritance, not by choice of religion) still mired in Jewish traditions, seeking to draw converted Gentiles into "Christian Jewishness," if it was merely Jews going out to make converts to Judaism without Jesus, there would not have been the Acts 15 Jerusalem council. Your handling of this is not clear, nor helpful.

======

However, leaving this aside, male circumcision is a fine procedure to improve healthful condition of the male organ, inasmuch as it largely removes the cause of harboring germs that remain when cleanliness procedure are not regularly observed.

One of the great benefits to females is seen in the fact that the maritally faithful wives of Jewish men rarely experience cervical cancer. That sad illness is a result of copulation with unclean uncircumcised males. Another benefit comes from knowing that one's martially faithful circumcised husband is very safe concerning the transmission of yeast and fungal or germ-born infections.

This facet of circumcision is physical, not religious, and is shared with and benefits many gentile men and couples.

==========

> I just really don't wand to discuss this anymore.

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.