RE: You stated multiple times that Hank should not be doing a show called the Bible Answer Man because he joined a church that doesn’t follow scripture.
Yes, as understood by Evangelicals since it IS an evangelical show.
I did not say this however : “he joined a church that doesn’t follow scripture.”
Show me where I said that.
I did say this : CRI has a Statement of Faith that Hank signed on to. That statement of faith includes things that are not in conformance to what the Orthodox Church believes in.
How can he continue to represent the CRI when he joins the Orthodox Church While simultaneously signing on to a statement of faith that is not in conformance to what the Orthodox church teaches?
RE: The only one doing the misrepresenting here is you, by continuing to assert that studying and learning bible scripture is not a part of Orthodox Christianity when the reality is that is a MAJOR component. Again, it would akin to me saying Billy Graham should not talk about heaven or hell because he is a member of a church that doesn’t believe in an afterlife
Again, I want you to show me by referrring to the post number in this thread where I said those things. If I did say them, I will clarify what I meant. So please do so, show me which one. Better still, copy and paste it in your next response to me. This is my second request to you. I am still waiting....
RE: you would have a valid point that he joined a church that DOESN’T use that element in its teaching, so he is really not suited to be talking about it on television.
And THAT is my MAIN point as I stated several times. If Hank is to be honest with himself and with his audience, he should quit the Bible Answer Man show and being President of the CRI. The family of the founder are right.
I’m glad we are in agreement here.
RE: That is exactly what he is doing and why they want to remove him. The article itself notes “Rische argued that Hanegraaff has been “trying to take Eastern Orthodox theology and blend it with Protestant theology.” He is adding supplemental Eastern Orthodox material to his television show since he is now a member of an Orthodox church. He hasn’t STOPPED teaching basic Christian dogma from the bible.
Well, that is the point of the contention — the SUPPLEMENTATION of Orthodox dogma which Evangelicals DO NOT agree with.
The listeners, supporters and members of churches that support the show and the institute, DO NOT AGREE with the supplemental material.
And the material is not merely supplemental as you suggest but BASIC when it comes to doctrine. The major contention between Evangelicals, Protestants AND Catholics and Orthodox when it comes to the issue of justification by Grace through faith alone.
So take BAM show for April 27th, 2017. At about the 4 minute mark continuing to the 9 minute mark, Hank attempts to discuss the relationship between faith and works, specifically in relationship to James 2:24.
Now for the bulk of what he says you only have to look at this sheet from CRI to see that he is cribbing from it:
http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/does-james-teach-salvation-by-works/
This a summary of the standard Reformed doctrine on the relationship between faith and works. Faith and works are contiguous, that is, they exist together, but one does not participate in the other. That is, no human activity contributes to justification. This is why faith has to be an empty virtue. It is instrumentally valuable because it is a vehicle for the transfer of moral credit, but in and of itself it is worthless. All human activity is precluded from justification.
But Hank is unclear as to whether he still believes this or whether he takes this to be compatible with an Orthodox view of justification. The Orthodox DO NOT take this position, and if he is to give the Orthodox view, then he should say so and also tell the audience why this is the correct view as opposed to the Reformed view that he used to adhere to.
He begins by saying he’s going “back to what the Bible says.” Well if that is what he thinks the Bible says, then he must think that the Bible teaches Sola Fide, as the CRI doctrinal statement (article 6) indicates and that Orthodoxy is not correct in their interpretation of scripture.
The fact that he doesn’t know that this interpretation is part and parcel of Sola Fide and hence incompatible with Orthodox teaching is yet further proof that he cannot speak for the statement of faith REQUIRED by CRI. After thirty years of theological study and interaction, this should be a cake walk.
If Hank wants to be a spokesperson for the Orthodox Community, the better way to do it is to ask the supporters and members of the Orthodox church to help him start a program... something like — The Orthodox View of Scripture.
THAT would be more in keeping with the way things ought to be.
RE: That statement is perfectly compatible with Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and any mainstream Christianity. The only ones I can see objecting to such a statement would be some group like Unitarians or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You just cut the statement that Hank signed on to of faith MID SENTENCE. Here is the one you did not include:
“by His unmerited GRACE ALONE, through FAITH ALONE, on account of Christ alone.”
Those lines you did not include CONSTITUTE the main dividing line between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Evangelicalism.
If Hank disagrees with the missing statement you did not include, then that is cause for concern among the Evangelicals who support the show.
That IS and has always been the point of contention and the reason why we had the Reformation in the first place.
RE: If he joined an Orthodox Church, I have little doubt he no longer believes in in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura anymore.
And that IS the main issue from the viewpoint of the founders of the organization and supporters of the show, which includes many churches and prominent evangelicals.
This is and always has been the dividing line between Protestants, Evangelicals and Catholics and Orthodox.
One should understand why supporters of the show DO NOT WANT someone who does not support these (for them ) FUNDAMENTAL understanding of ultimate authority AND the basis by which one is justified by God.
RE: Perhaps the reason he doesn’t is because his focus The Bible Answer Man is to address topics in the bible for all Christian viewers, not to speak out AGAINST a doctrine that many of his listeners believe in.
Unfortunately, a large number of questions relate to how one is saved. Now that he has openly announced his Chrismation, of course, a large number of questions are going to relate to the difference between Orthodox and Evangelical beliefs.
That’s why I said this — Why isn’t Hank bound by this doctrinal statement? 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 logically incompatible with the CRI doctrinal statement? What is more, why are his employees obligated by a doctrinal standard that he apparently is not? Why does Hank get a doctrinal pass?
RE: if the situation was reversed and a Catholic TV show host had a show named “Lives of the Twelve Apostles”, I would NOT object if he wanted to continue hosting the show after becoming a member of a Dutch Reformed Church, nor would I claim he’s unsuited for the job because Dutch Reform Christians don’t believe in the twelve apostles.
Are you serious or are you simply being facetious? I’m not certain what you mean when you said : “Dutch Reform Christians don’t believe in the twelve apostles.” Of course they do.
If the show were merely about the lives of the 12 apostles, there would be no issue at all. However, this is not the case with the CRI and the Bible Answer Man. The show touches on ALL DOCTRINAL MATTERS.
Would the RCC have a Dutch Reformed Minister hosting a Roman Catholic show and then explaining to his audience why the Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura is the correct view? I highly doubt that.
RE: If an Eastern Orthodox Christian hosts a show called “The two natures of Christ” and he wants to continue to discuss the subject after becoming a Baptist, that’s perfectly fine with me. I wouldn’t pretend the Baptists don’t believe Christ is both human and divine and say “He can’t host the show now because he is no longer part of a church that teaches Christ is both God and man” because I disagree with them on OTHER stuff.
If the entire show were only LIMITED to THAT ONE TOPIC, a topic both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox agree on, there would be no issues at all. Unfortunately if you listen to the show long enough as I have, the questions people who call bring up, go BEYOND that one topic.
You can devote one show to the topic of the Trinity. Fine, you can then invite an Orthodox or even a Catholic to join the show and answer questions LIMITED TO THAT ONE TOPIC. But what are you going to do BEYOND that one show?
Issues like who to pray to, confession, icons, images, the basis by which one is justified, etc. etc. topics which there are major disagreements between Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox are all covered.
That is why you cannot simply pick and choose one or two topic ( ones where there is no disagreement at all ) and then on that basis say, there should be no issues with a Protestant hosting a Catholic show that answers questions about the faith. It is not as simple as that.
RE: Again, he is hosting a show called The Bible Answer Man, not “Praying 101”. If he starts his television program by whipping out a Chotki and instructing viewers that he is going to lead them on The Rule of the Theotokos each week, THEN you’d have a valid point that “he is no longer the Bible Answer Man” is specifically promoting only Eastern Orthodox beliefs.
Again, the only problem with that is Hank has been hosting the show for decades and people know what he used to believe in. Now that they know of his Chrismation, those topics and others are going to be brought up and he will be hard pressed NOT to tell his audience why he now repudiates the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
And if Hank does that, of course, he supporters of the show are going to be concerned and rightly so.
That would be like an Evangelical hosting a Catholic show and telling people who call asking them about the topic ( because they KNOW he is not Catholic) why he believes that the Catholic view is erroneous or why the Pope is not infallible even when he claims to speak ex-cathedra.
YOU CANNOT AVOID THESE TOPIC UNLESS YOU ACTIVELY SUPPRESS AND SCREEN PEOPLE WHO CALL. And why would one want to do abandon that tradition of accepting calls as they come?
RE: Gosh, but you were saying over and over again that those churches don’t use scripture?
The fact that I DID say that the first part is scriptural should already tell you that I never said what you claimed I said.
It is what goes BEYOND what scripture teaches that makes the difference. That is why one has to understand the concerned brought up by the family of Walter Martin and other supporters.
I can’t find a better way than for Hank to host a show sponsored by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
So let's make this very simple.
If he continued to host a "Bible Answer" show, EXCEPT it was hosted by an Eastern Orthodox group INSTEAD of an "Evangelical" organization, will it OK for them to continue answering questions on the bible THEN?
Will on the protestants on FR then stop pretending that Orthodox Christianity is not "scripture based", and is not "biblical" even though most Orthodox Churches use more scripture in their services than many of their fellow protestants and Orthodox churches can trace their origins to first century Christianity?
Will they stop lying about non-Protestant Christianity and stop claiming "he is no longer the Bible Answer Man" then?
Will they stop saying that by joining the Orthodox Church, he can only host shows about icons and praying to Mary?
Seems like it would easy to resolve this dilemma.
Alrighty, here's your earlier post where you made such comments:
>> The organization and the show was founded by an evangelical minister named Walter Martin. The purpose is specifically to explain Christian Doctrine AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE. <<
34 posted on 7/14/2017, 3:11:20 PM by SeekAndFind
So, if you're NOT saying the Orthodox Church doesn't teach Christian Doctrine AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE, why the complaint that an Orthodox Christian is now hosting a show to explain Christian Doctrine AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE? (emphasis yours)
Aren't non-Evangelical protestants capable of doing exactly that?
If a Catholic Church has a reading from Genesis and the Catholic deacon notes that the Bible says God created man in his own image, so all human beings today are made in the image and likeness of God, the deacon ISN'T "explaining Christian Doctrine AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE"?
If an Orthodox Church has a reading from Jeremiah and the priest tells his congregation that the "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" line teaches us that God considers all human life is sacred before birth, then the priest ISN'T "explaining Christian Doctrine AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE"?
Quite frankly, I'd trust PLENTY of non-Evangelicals to "explain Christian Doctrine AS TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE" before I'd trust a card-carrying "Bible belivinin' Evangelical" like pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Jimmy Carter to explain those same passages.