Hanegraaff to Constantinople

Status
Not open for further replies.
ReformedReidian said:
Because he apostasized. Someone started a thread some time back asking for responses to Drake's views. And then we sort of got the vibe we shouldn't talk about him.
Click to expand...

Mod note:
From personal experience as well as at this site, the man in question is a contentious heretic and discussions related to him usually end up becoming scandalous fodder elsewhere. Invariably links are posted in discussions about him that lead others to Wonderland and a very deep rabbit hole. Let's not foul up the site with the man and his many oddities.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Mod note:
From personal experience as well as at this site, the man in question is a contentious heretic and discussions related to him usually end up becoming scandalous fodder elsewhere. Invariably links are posted in discussions about him that lead others to Wonderland and a very deep rabbit hole. Let's not foul up the site with the man and his many oddities.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I didn't post anything and didn't really expound upon what he believes (partly because I can't keep up with how fast he changes it)
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Mod note:
From personal experience as well as at this site, the man in question is a contentious heretic and discussions related to him usually end up becoming scandalous fodder elsewhere. Invariably links are posted in discussions about him that lead others to Wonderland and a very deep rabbit hole. Let's not foul up the site with the man and his many oddities.
Click to expand...
I apologize. Before he went nuts I thought he had some good arguments against EO but that still may be on there that were untainted of his newer stuff.
 
One of the (sadly, unsurprising) things that I have noticed on FB, Twitter, etc... is a hardcore defense of HH, a total ignorance of EO, and saying things like "You can be EO and hold to Sola Fide", etc...

Which shows that they have no idea what Sola Fide means, and frankly don't seem to care.

Just more examples of the complete insanity that is modern evangelicalism, its gross anti-intellectualism, and love of popular men regardless of their moral failures and heretical examples.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Back to the OP, an EO apologist, an acquaintance of mine, gave some background on what Hanegraff's move to EO might mean.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017...howComment=1491938177776#c2956304261910927135
Click to expand...

I saw that a few days ago and considered linking to it but seemed a little personal. Hanegraaff had been attending an EO church for two years. If HH is trying to avoid accountability this path is certainly risky and a round about way to say the least.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
The fluidity of EO doctrine is made evident in the comments to this item at the link above. Much like Romanism, it is often like nailing jello to the wall when discussing doctrine with EO proponents. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I've debated enough of them that I know what are some bad "opening moves" (on either side). And for full disclosure: I actually love 99.99% of my EO friends. They are some of my best facebook friends (if that's actually a real category).

1. Try to be clear on what Sola Script. is and isn't. It is not the proposition that the Bible alone is our sole authority. It means simply that the Bible is our final authority (it is our norming norm).

2. Get them to be clear on the Consensus of the Fathers. What is a Father? We usually define it as a theologian who lived from 100 to 500 (though I would extend it to Photios). They will say that the age of the Fathers has not ended but continues today. So when they tell you, "Go read the Fathers," and you reply, "I've read probably 10,000 pages of the early church guys," they will then say, "But you haven't read all the fathers, since that continues today." Shrug your shoulders at that point.

3. Don't let them claim the Vincentian Canon on you. It proves very little.

That's usually the most basic lines in debate. From there it gets harder:

4. Don't flinch when they throw the 40,000 denominations card at you. It's a smoke screen. Even if true it doesn't negate one's position, and even terms like unity aren't self-evident.

5. Be ready to defend post-Augustinian versions of divine simplicity. Hodge and Dabney are good on this point. Most debates don't include the Filioque, since that involves metaphysics and nobody, Protestant or Orthodox, really wants to talk about it. But sometimes it happens.
 
ZackF said:
I saw that a few days ago and considered linking to it but seemed a little personal. Hanegraaff had been attending an EO church for two years. If HH is trying to avoid accountability this path is certainly risky and a round about way to say the least.
Click to expand...

Perry quoted it on Steve Hays blog, so it's public knowledge now. Perry doesn't blog anymore. He is probably the toughest EO guy to debate, but he doesn't debate anymore. Perry has helped me on the fathers and on some philosophical issues.

I do wonder if HH will get his own spot on Ancient Faith Radio. I hope not, for everyone's sake. American Orthodox are particularly bad about celebrating the latest big-name convert. Orthodox Bridge is the worst. It's not quite as bad as the "Rome, Sweet Home" types, but it's close.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
Often such conversions are in reaction to the shallow nature of much of modern evangelical worship. Unfortunately, all they are really doing in converting is exchanging modern ecclesiastical excess for ancient ecclesiastical excess.
Click to expand...

Bill The Baptist said:
I pray that he does not follow that trajectory. Often people are searching for something because the thing needed is something they simply do not possess.
Click to expand...

Bill, you knocked it out of the park. A former friend of mine has been following this same trajectory for some time now, and I've come to realize that he simply does not possess faith.

What makes people like this particularly dangerous is that they do not even recognize their lack of faith or they simply refuse to come to terms with their lack of faith. They live in denial and often cherish doubt as if it were faith. Their constant need for change, which they would chalk up to theological evolution or progressivism, is simply a smokescreen.
 
ReformedReidian said:
I've debated enough of them that I know what are some bad "opening moves" (on either side). And for full disclosure: I actually love 99.99% of my EO friends. They are some of my best facebook friends (if that's actually a real category).

1. Try to be clear on what Sola Script. is and isn't. It is not the proposition that the Bible alone is our sole authority. It means simply that the Bible is our final authority (it is our norming norm).

2. Get them to be clear on the Consensus of the Fathers. What is a Father? We usually define it as a theologian who lived from 100 to 500 (though I would extend it to Photios). They will say that the age of the Fathers has not ended but continues today. So when they tell you, "Go read the Fathers," and you reply, "I've read probably 10,000 pages of the early church guys," they will then say, "But you haven't read all the fathers, since that continues today." Shrug your shoulders at that point.

3. Don't let them claim the Vincentian Canon on you. It proves very little.

That's usually the most basic lines in debate. From there it gets harder:

4. Don't flinch when they throw the 40,000 denominations card at you. It's a smoke screen. Even if true it doesn't negate one's position, and even terms like unity aren't self-evident.

5. Be ready to defend post-Augustinian versions of divine simplicity. Hodge and Dabney are good on this point. Most debates don't include the Filioque, since that involves metaphysics and nobody, Protestant or Orthodox, really wants to talk about it. But sometimes it happens.
Click to expand...
Would the same basic arguments used to refute the Church of Rome be useful against them in discussions of theology then?
 
Dachaser said:
Would the same basic arguments used to refute the Church of Rome be useful against them in discussions of theology then?
Click to expand...

No. They don't hold to the same church government. In fact, some of their anti-papal apologetics is quite good. And they don't hold to Purgatory (in fact, read up on the debates between Mark of Ephesus vs the Papal Legates)

On the surface level, as I noted in (1)-(3), a lot of stuff is similar. But that's not getting to the heart of the issues.
 
ReformedReidian said:
No. They don't hold to the same church government. In fact, some of their anti-papal apologetics is quite good. And they don't hold to Purgatory (in fact, read up on the debates between Mark of Ephesus vs the Papal Legates)

On the surface level, as I noted in (1)-(3), a lot of stuff is similar. But that's not getting to the heart of the issues.
Click to expand...

They don't hold to purgatory in the Catholic sense, but some EO do believe in celestial toll houses that we must pass through on the way to heaven.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
They don't hold to purgatory in the Catholic sense, but some EO do believe in celestial toll houses that we must pass through on the way to heaven.
Click to expand...

That's a fun question to ask them. No council ever ruled on it (to my knowledge) and most of the "patristic" evidence is from later Russian fathers. True, the Alexandria school did have some interesting views on life after death, but it wasn't really toll-houses.

The more politically-correct GOARCH types reject toll-houses. Most Russians accept them.
 
ReformedReidian said:
That's a fun question to ask them. No council ever ruled on it (to my knowledge) and most of the "patristic" evidence is from later Russian fathers. True, the Alexandria school did have some interesting views on life after death, but it wasn't really toll-houses.

The more politically-correct GOARCH types reject toll-houses. Most Russians accept them.
Click to expand...

I asked one once if they had to bake cookies in these toll houses. He didn't get the joke.
 
ReformedReidian said:
No. They don't hold to the same church government. In fact, some of their anti-papal apologetics is quite good. And they don't hold to Purgatory (in fact, read up on the debates between Mark of Ephesus vs the Papal Legates)

On the surface level, as I noted in (1)-(3), a lot of stuff is similar. But that's not getting to the heart of the issues.
Click to expand...
They do also have extra biblical non canon books they refer to as scripture, and would see salvation in the sense of faith and good works though, correct?
 
Dachaser said:
They do also have extra biblical non canon books they refer to as scripture, and would see salvation in the sense of faith and good works though, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, but they gloss them differently than Rome. Don't get me wrong, a strong handle on justification will serve you well in these talks, but a powerful refutation of congruent/condign merit, for example, might not phase EO all that much.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Yes, but they gloss them differently than Rome. Don't get me wrong, a strong handle on justification will serve you well in these talks, but a powerful refutation of congruent/condign merit, for example, might not phase EO all that much.
Click to expand...

Theosis is kind of a black box, basket or blob that they put their salvation eggs into.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Yes, but they gloss them differently than Rome. Don't get me wrong, a strong handle on justification will serve you well in these talks, but a powerful refutation of congruent/condign merit, for example, might not phase EO all that much.
Click to expand...
What would they see as a sinner needing to do to pass over from spiritual death unto spiritual life?
 
Dachaser said:
Is that not similar though to Mormons believing that we can become gods, or same as in Word of faith movement would hold to?
Click to expand...

Only superficially are they similar. EO are fully Trinitarian with a solid Christology. Mormonism isn't even in the ball park.
 
Dachaser said:
Is that not similar though to Mormons believing that we can become gods, or same as in Word of faith movement would hold to?
Click to expand...

No, because on EO gloss you never cease to be human. The best thing to do around these questions is to
1) Pick up Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church
2) Read Three Views on Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

retroGRAD3
Responding to JWs
Replies
27
Views
2K
SeamusDelion
SeamusDelion
ServantofGod
  • Locked
Vampires. Too low to evangelize?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Me Died Blue
Me Died Blue
A
  • Locked
Responding to "Inner Light"
Replies
8
Views
2K
Dachaser
D
G
  • Locked
Funny picture to caption
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Galatians220
G
M
  • Locked
Calvinists Convert to Catholicism
Replies
28
Views
10K
johnbugay
johnbugay
Back
Top