Posted on 07/14/2017 10:35:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Family members of Dr. Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, are calling on current CRI president Hank Hanegraaff to step down due to his conversion from evangelicalism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
A majority of the family members have signed a statement asking the "Bible Answer Man" to leave his leadership post.
Jill Martin Rische, the eldest daughter of Dr. Martin and who leads Walter Martin Ministries alongside her husband, Kevin Rische, told The Christian Post in a phone interview on Thursday that she and many other evangelical Christians were "shocked an surprised" when Hanegraaff was formally received into the Eastern Orthodox Church back in April.
She argued that Hanegraaff has since been teaching a blend of Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelical Christianity on the "Bible Answer Man" show, which she called "fundamentally dishonest."
Hanegraaff insisted in an interview with NPR's Charlotte affiliate WFAE earlier in July that for the most part, his theological beliefs have not changed.
"So I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with evangelicals, with Roman Catholics, with Orthodoxy around the essentials of the Christian faith — meaning the main and plain things," he said.
But Rische pointed to an article on waltermartin.com that highlights the major differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelical Christianity, and said it would be dishonest to claim there aren't major aspects where the two traditions disagree, such as on Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone.
"Evangelical Christianity believes that the Bible is the absolute and final authority, and Eastern Orthodoxy does not," she said.
Evangelicals also believe in Salvation by the grace of God as a gift, she added, while Orthodoxy considers salvation to be a progress based on good works.
Rische argued that Hanegraaff has been "trying to take Eastern Orthodox theology and blend it with Protestant theology."
She noted that her father started CRI in 1960 as a Protestant ministry, and said it is problematic that a man who has now joined the Eastern Orthodox Church is running it.
"It is not OK for an Eastern Orthodox believer to run a Protestant ministry," Rische said.
You have to be one or the other. It is fundamentally dishonest from a theological standpoint for Hank Hanegraaff to be teaching Eastern Orthodoxy on the 'Bible Answer Man' program."
The statement Rische signed calling on Hanegraaff to step down as CRI president also contains the signatures of her husband and other members of Martin's family, including his children — Daniel, Elaine, and Debbie — and his widow, Darlene.
The statement claims that Martin "would be appalled" by Hanegraaff's conversion to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
"CRI was founded on the absolute authority of the Bible and salvation by faith alone, doctrines the Eastern Orthodox church denies. A rejection of that foundation is a rejection of Biblical truth. Historically and theologically, Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelical Christianity are two distinctly different faiths that cannot be combined," it reads in part.
"In view of this, Mr. Hanegraaff should immediately cease teaching Eastern Orthodox doctrine on the Protestant Bible Answer Man program, and step down from the leadership of Christian Research Institute. To do anything less, from a Biblical perspective, is unethical and profoundly dishonest."
Cindee Martin Morgan, who is also Martin's daughter, did not sign the statemen. In a separate interview with CP in May, she pushed back against critics who have indicated they have a problem with Hanegraaff's conversion.
Morgan told CP at the time that "my father, Dr. Walter Martin, taught that the Catholic Church has the essential 'core' doctrine of Christianity. He didn't agree with some of the teaching added by the Church and warned against it."
She added: "Given the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is very similar in ways to the Catholic Church — and holds to the essential core doctrine of Christianity — I believe Dr. Martin would view this Church (Eastern Orthodox) the same way.
"He would never declare that someone had 'left the faith,' in either of these churches, if the person professed faith in Jesus Christ demonstrated by the fruit of their life."
Rische told CP in response that while she does not want to push a sister vs. sister narrative, she contended that Morgan's statement about what their father believed is not truthful.
As evidence, she sent CP transcribed comments from Martin on one of his series on Roman Catholicism, where the late CRI founder said:
"There is a great movement on today in apostate Protestantism to reunite with Rome. The threat of Communism is pushing Eastern Orthodoxy — the Greeks, the Coptics, the Egyptians — and the Roman Catholics together ... I would return to one Universal Church and to one supreme bishop if the theology of that church were consistent with the theology of the Word of God ... We test everything, including the churches, by the authority of Scripture and whatever does not measure to Scripture is not worthy of our allegiance. Our allegiance is to Christ."
Martin added, "And in the words of Martin Luther that I proudly echo though I am a Baptist by persuasion, he was asked, 'What shall we give our people, Father Luther, they are so used to relics, prayers to the saints, and all the things the church has sanctified through the ages. What shall we give them if we accept what you say?' Luther responded, 'Jesus Christ, reverend father. Jesus Christ alone. He is sufficient for the church throughout all ages. Christ only. Here I stand, God help me, I can do no other.'"
Rische clarified that the specific disagreements between evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy need to be talked about, not fought about.
"We are different from the Greek Orthodox Church, and have been for centuries. We cannot allow these differences in terms of theology — how we interpret the Scriptures — we cannot allow these differences to be taken and blended together because Hank Hanegraaff feels he needs to do that," she said.
Still, Rische said that she continues to pray for the CRI president, especially in light of his battle with mantle cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer he was diagnosed with in May.
"I wouldn't want anyone to go through cancer. I've seen it up close, and it's a terrible thing, extremely painful. I would never want to see anyone suffering that, and I would pray for him and his family, and have," she stated.
Some are, some aren’t. The same can be said about any “Christian” sect or denomination.
—
Agree 100%.
RE: Yes, I know EXACTLY how people in this tradition think: “Everyone who disagrees with us is of the devil!”
I think you’re exaggerating. I know several Moody Bible Institute graduates and I have not seen one who would say : “Everyone who disagrees with us is of the devil!”
It depends on the NATURE of the Disagreement. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, then yes, the doctrine is heretical, but that would not be unique to Moody Graduates. Even Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine would agree.
There is a difference between simply believing that you are in error in certain areas of scripture and saying that you are of the devil.
I have theological issues with Hank that make his "conversion" the least of his issues. I agree it underscores his drift but I find myself agreeing that, apart of the core values and principles of our worldview, Hank's conversion isn't all that earth moving.
That’s not what Sacred Scripture says.
Gal 1:9ff But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Please check your private messages. Thanks.
RE: Gal 1:9ff But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
And where do we find what the Apostle Paul preach to us?
Why of course, in Sacred Scripture ( where his Epistles and Pastoral Letters are ).
So, what’s wrong with my statement? I said, any tradition of the church should be evaluated in light of Sacred Scripture.
>>So, I would say we have a conundrum. Today’s canon was not determined by the bible but by the belief of a council of bishops. Also, it was not a once (one council) and done thing. Multiple successive councils are responsible for identifying the books that make up today’s bible.
All who profess to be Christians except those in the Catholic and Orthodox churches MUST refute your entire post in order to adhere to their two fundamental doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
Oh, right. The Galatians had copies of Paul’s epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, etc. Including the ones that hadn’t been written yet. Because when he said “preached”, he didn’t really mean it. Because when he was actually there he never uttered a word.
You crack me up.
I wrote what I believe history tells us is true. If I'm wrong or missed something, tell me why. Hopefully, none of us are so intractable that we won't change a position when that position is proven wrong.
In this we can agree, that the leadership of the Christian Research Institute has a right to have a spokesman who reflects their beliefs. BTW, I recall listening regularly to the CRI radio program some 40 years ago.
Nope. Again, apples and oranges. Communist countries have one-party uncontested elections where people can't choose anyone but Communists, so by definition, they are not "democratic", even if they use the name.
Eastern Orthodox Churches on the other hand, use scripture at EVERY service, and having reading and understanding the bible as a major component of their faith, and have done so for nearly 2000 years. Go to any Eastern Orthodox Church for a Sunday liturgy and you will hear multiple bible readings, and their pastor will discuss what the passage meant during his sermon afterwards. Thus, by definition, they are scriptural and bible-based.
If you find an Orthodox Church that claims to be bible-based but NEVER once uses a bible at their services, then your "Communist countries that call themselves Democratic" allegory would make sense.
Just because you flat out lie about Orthodox Christianity and claim they don't study scripture or follow the bible doesn't make it true, anymore than if I were to claim Billy Graham shouldn't be allowed to discuss Heaven and Hell because "he is a member of the Baptist faith and their churches do not believe in the afterlife"
Absolutely. I did not mean to give that perception regarding MBI, which was actually quite balanced, and did not attack other Christian denominations. However, the school is often linked with Grace Theological Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary as a top Evangelical school. I also attended other schools linked to Bob Jones University, which presented a very hardcore approach towards other denominations.
This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. That without a church council, we would not know what books are inspired.
The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are REGIONAL church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage).
But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but AFFIRMED the books they believed had functioned as FOUNDATIONAL documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN, not the way they wanted them to be.
Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.
This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but BY A BROAD AND ANCIENT CONSENSUS.
I don’t usually agree with the Higher Critic Bart Ehrman.
However, I agree with at least this one statement of his -— “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.”
This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is NOT JUST A MAN MADE CONSTRUCT. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.
The same was true for the Old Testament canon.
Jesus himself used and cited the Old Testament writings with no indication anywhere that there was uncertainty about which books belonged.
In fact, He held His listeners accountable for knowing these books.
But, in all of this, there was no Old Testament church council that officially picked them (not even Jamnia). They too were the result of ancient and widespread consensus.
In the end, we can certainly acknowledge that humans played a role in the canonical process. But, not the role that is so commonly attributed to them. Humans did not determine the canon, they RESPONDED to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon and recognition of these as such were chosen because the Holy Spirit guided Christians of all ages to recognize them.
No problem. The Hail Mary prayer is directly citing scripture, and versions of it are prayered by all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and many protestant churches).
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you“ Luke 1:28
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (Jesus). Luke 1:42.
"The mother of my Lord" Luke 1:43
"Supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for everyone, for this is good and pleases our Savior." -- 1 Tim 2:1
I'm sure Hank would also be happy to explain this to you but you were too busy pretending the church he joined doesn't use scripture.
You forgot the part where you ask her to pray for you as a sinner, etc.
If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death” — 1 John 5:16
The bible has about a half dozen difference times where Jesus tells people to confess their sins to other people instead of to “God alone”, by the way:
“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working”
James 5:16
“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
John 20:23
” ‘But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he then said to the paralytic— ‘Rise, pick up your bed and go home.’ And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men”.
Matthew 9:6-8
“Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ”
2 Corinthians 2:10
RE: Just because you flat out lie about Orthodox Christianity and claim they don’t study scripture or follow the bible doesn’t make it true, anymore than if I were to claim Billy Graham shouldn’t be allowed to discuss Heaven and Hell because “he is a member of the Baptist faith and their churches do not believe in the afterlife”
I think you are misrepresenting what I said.
You were arguing this — that the name of the organization is the “Christian Research Institute” (CRI) and the name of his show is “The Bible Answer Man” (BAM), not “the Protestant Research Institute” and “The Evangelical Answer Man”
Sure,that’s their name, but they have NEVER, EVER stated or pretended that because they use the word “Christian” or “Bible” for their name, that their point of view do not reflect Evangelical Beliefs.
Your argument seems to be this — Because they use the name :”Christian” or “Bible” in their organization or their show, they should then ALLOW others who are Christians like Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to lead their organization or their show.
As for Hank Hanegraaf, If you change your views, you should say so, openly and with explanation. It just breeds suspicion and undermines credibility as well as making you look dishonest if you pretend there’s no differences.
Second, he should have simply added some Orthodox material to balance things out. And then add a blurb saying to the effect that CRI recognizes that Christians disagree on such and so issues so we present both sides for consideration. That would have allowed them to take a more impartial stance by taking a step back. It would signal that Hank was not trying to make CRI into the Orthodox Christian Research Institute. It certainly would have helped not to alienate his evangelical base quite so much. But that train has left the station.
Also, Hank has more direct problems. The CRI Doctrinal Statement is REQUIRED for all employees. You have to sign it to work there.
Well just for starters look at section 6, which reads,
“(6) Jesus’ death on the cross provided a penal substitutionary atonement for the sins of humanity. In salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by His unmerited grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.”
Now, I am pretty darn sure that that is not Orthodox teaching and it is not compatible with Orthodox teaching anymore than say, the decree on justification from Trent is compatible with it. It doesn’t matter if you think the doctrines the CRI doctrinal statement expresses are true or false. What matters is that it expresses WHAT THEY BELIEVE and it is binding on CRI employees of which Hank is one.
Does he affirm the CRI doctrinal statement as it stands or not? If not, how can he work there when CRI advances doctrines that directly contradict the teaching of his church? To do so, gives tacit assent and support to those doctrines. If he does assent to it, how can he be in communion with the Orthodox church when at his chrismation he either explicitly or implicitly publicly swore before God and the church to uphold all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church and those teachings are incompatible in some important areas with the CRI doctrinal statement?
For that matter, why doesn’t Hank just come out and say he doesn’t believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura anymore and explain why?
BTW, Hank doesn’t get to play the persecution card here and Orthodox should not fall for it. Here is why. If those Evangelical networks had not dropped him, I would certainly take them less seriously, and it would probably be straight out dishonest. It is part of their job as Evangelical networks to promote, well, what EVANGELICALS believe.
If we had an Eastern Orthodox radio host who became a baptist, do you think they would leave him untouched? Not a chance. They are just policing their own borders.
Finally, I challenge you to show me where I said that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe or use scripture. C’mon, point out one post I made in this thread. If you can’t you owe me an apology by calling me a liar.
What I did was HIGHLIGHT the major differences in PRACTICE between Evangelicals and Eastern orthodox ( See Post #13 above ), even as they read the same scripture.
THOSE DIFFERENCES form the dividing line between Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy even as they share many things in common. Let’s not pretend that there are no differences.
RE: The Hail Mary prayer is directly citing scripture, and versions of it are prayered by all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and many protestant churches).
The first part of the Hail Mary prayer is scriptural. It was the statement made by the Angel Gabriel to Mary.
The last part is where Evangelicals disagree with.
And the very act of PRAYING TO MARY is what Evangelicals disagree with as well. They find no basis for that in scripture.
2 John 1:12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish [to do so] with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
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.