Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[TLFisher]

Since Hank Hanegraff once traveled the world with blended co-workers, this may be newsworthy to some of you http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2...ern-orthodoxy/

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Terry

Since Hank Hanegraff once traveled the world with blended co-workers, this may be newsworthy to some of you http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2...ern-orthodoxy/

Terry, this is absolutely remarkable. I am sure that Hank Hanegraaff's LSM buddies are in a tailspin over this.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Terry, this is absolutely remarkable. I am sure that Hank Hanegraaff's LSM buddies are in a tailspin over this.

The blendeds once portrayed Hank as one who was gradually aligning with the LC. A move to to Orthodox Church is far removed from anything related to the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The blendeds once portrayed Hank as one who was gradually aligning with the LC. A move to to Orthodox Church is far removed from anything related to the LC.

I was in a home meeting (2009) one of the elders was speaking reverently of Hank as if he's an honorary blended. While talking of hank's traveling to the far east with blended co-workers, everyone was on the edge of their seats.

[Koinonia]

A couple of years ago, family members told me that Hank Hanegraaff was writing a book about his experience with the LC. I did some digging online and came across this, apparently never published but scheduled for publication in August 2015: The Authentic Christian Life: Moving from Doctrine to True Intimacy with God.

Simultaneously released in China and the United States, this revolutionary book brings into view a fresh expression of authentic New Testament Christianity, unencumbered by westernized cultural trappings. The Authentic Christian Life lovingly moves us from doctrine to intimacy with the living God.

Drawing from multiple experiences with persecuted Christians in China, Hanegraaff radically rethinks what it means to live the authentic Christian life. Inspired by Watchman Nee's classic, multi-million bestseller, The Normal Christian Life (1957).

It is interesting that this was never published, particularly in light of Hanegraaff's conversion to Orthodoxy. And no matter what LC leaders might say, Hanegraaff's converting to Orthodoxy is a conscience rejection of the LC.

[Koinonia]

This website posts the following interesting update:

Update 4/10/17. On his radio broadcast the day after his chrismation, Hank responded to a caller regarding his conversion. Basically he said that he has been attending an Orthodox church for over two years, based on an experience many years ago while in China, where he saw simple people living the Christian life in an enviable way. This led him to study Watchman Nee and what he wrote on the subject of theosis, which since then has deepened his love for Christ. And to prove he is still a Christian, he recite the entire Nicene Creed. Regarding his ministry he also said that he will continue to promote mere Christianity, based on this Creed, which is a principle of C.S. Lewis, just as he always has.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The blendeds once portrayed Hank as one who was gradually aligning with the LC. A move to to Orthodox Church is far removed from anything related to the LC.

I'm always amazed by who the LC courts as "experts." Apparently this has now come full circle, since nearly all the early LC opposers from the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (Jack Sparks, Neil Duddy, Peter Gillquist, Brooks Alexander, Ronald Enroth, etc.) also converted to Orthodoxy.

There's something about researching the LC that does strange things to people.

[Freedom]

Update 4/10/17. On his radio broadcast the day after his chrismation, Hank responded to a caller regarding his conversion. Basically he said that he has been attending an Orthodox church for over two years, based on an experience many years ago while in China, where he saw simple people living the Christian life in an enviable way. This led him to study Watchman Nee and what he wrote on the subject of theosis, which since then has deepened his love for Christ. And to prove he is still a Christian, he recite the entire Nicene Creed. Regarding his ministry he also said that he will continue to promote mere Christianity, based on this Creed, which is a principle of C.S. Lewis, just as he always has.

Like Ohio mentioned, it seems that something about Hank's interaction with the LC resulted in a dramatic shift in his views. Interestingly, this shift was not towards the LC, but towards something more 'structured'.

According to the quote, Hank likes the concept of theosis. Of course, this is a teaching/idea that LCers would love to lay claim to, so it begs the question of why he would find the concept more desirable as it is understood in a non-LC group. The irony of it all is just so striking.

[Freedom]

Simultaneously released in China and the United States, this revolutionary book brings into view a fresh expression of authentic New Testament Christianity, unencumbered by westernized cultural trappings. The Authentic Christian Life lovingly moves us from doctrine to intimacy with the living God.

Drawing from multiple experiences with persecuted Christians in China, Hanegraaff radically rethinks what it means to live the authentic Christian life. Inspired by Watchman Nee's classic, multi-million bestseller, The Normal Christian Life (1957).

As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems that something about Hank's interaction with the LC resulted in a dramatic shift in his views. Apparently, he was affected by what he saw in China. So just exactly what did he see in China? My guess is that he saw (or felt a sense of guilt for) something related to the persecution that LC members had to endure. Based on what was written in the CRI journal on the LCM, it seems the CRI equated the "persecuted church" with being a 'purer' form of Christianity than the various expressions seen in places like America.

It is, of course, a big fallacy for anyone to assume that enduring persecution validates what a group believes. But it's exactly what the Hank/CRI did in attempt support/defend the LCM. Don't get my wrong, I don't intend to make light of what people have had to suffer, but to throw persecution into the equation is deceptive and misdirects focus from the real issues. Whether or not a group of Christians has been persecuted plays no part in assessing the validity or accuracy of what they believe/practice.

The LCM in China has been characterized by Hank as a group who is "unencumbered by westernized cultural trappings," as if such a characteristic actually means anything. Notice how nothing is mentioned about easternized cultural trappings. Obviously groups in America like the LCM are nowhere near as common as groups that actually formed here, but just because they don't have western roots doesn't mean that they exist as groups without any kind of cultural element to them. There are plenty of groups that formed in the absence of western culture, such as groups like the Eastern Orthodox Church which Hank recently joined.

[Evangelical]

Certain individuals would like to make the claim that theosis is a heretical teaching. This is not the case. In fact I can show that even the reformer's Calvin and Luther believed in it.

If we look into the early church teachings, it becomes very clear that deification was a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of salvation.

I will start with a quote from Calvin:

Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us. (Commentary 2 Peter 1:4)

This is taken from "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin.

Now I know that Calvin qualifies the term later, and its meaning is not quite the same as that used in the EOC, but so does Witness Lee. So why is Lee called a heretic and not Calvin?

Using published literature, I can also show that Lee's teachings are more Orthodox about theosis than many evangelicals (who deny theosis).

There are two main ideas found in the early church:
1. Jesus died so that man can become God
2. Even if man did not sin, Jesus still would have died for the purpose of making men God.

These ideas were never declared heretical by anyone. Even the reformers, Luther, Calvin and others did not say they were heretical.

Luther and Calvin both affirm the teaching of Athanasius or something very similar to it.

Gregory of Nazianzus was one of three Cappadocian Fathers who were instrumental in helping define the doctrine of the Trinity against heresies.

He wrote:

While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are two main ideas found in the early church:
1. Jesus died so that man can become God
2. Even if man did not sin, Jesus still would have died for the purpose of making men God.

The greatest theologian in church history was the apostle Paul.

Would he not have included this teaching under the anointing Spirit if it were true?

[Nell]

Hey, E—

Are you God? Or, are you god? If not, why not? What will it take to put you over the line? When will you become g/God? How will it happen? Will you have to die first?

We need details. I can’t find anything in the Bible that explains how Evangelical is going to become g/God. There’s nothing about ANYONE who actually became g/God. Or is that new?

.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Hey, E—
Are you God? Or, are you god? If not, why not? What will it take to put you over the line? When will you become g/God? How will it happen? Will you have to die first?
We need details. I can’t find anything in the Bible that explains how Evangelical is going to become g/God. There’s nothing about ANYONE who actually became g/God. Or is that new?

Paul wrote we don't really know what we shall become, there is still some mystery about it.

We get new glorified bodies like Jesus's, that are immortal. That's a "god" by anyone's definition (especially Hollywood's). To me it means partaking of God's divine nature. Anyway I see these questions as irrelevant details to the purpose of salvation just as calvinism vs arminism is irrelevant to salvation.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul wrote we don't really know what we shall become, there is still some mystery about it.

We get new glorified bodies like Jesus's, that are immortal. That's a "god" by anyone's definition (especially Hollywood's). To me it means partaking of God's divine nature. Anyway I see these questions as irrelevant details to the purpose of salvation just as calvinism vs arminism is irrelevant to salvation.

But, are you God? Have you “become”? Yes or no? Not hard questions.

Anyone’s definition? Do you speak for everyone? Even Hollywood!!?? Wow! You might be god.

So...details are irrelevant when you don’t have any. Got it. To become something... anything ... you need to ...know how...? Otherwise, what you’re preaching is empty words. “Poof!” You’re god! Or, “Poof! You’re a heretic!”


.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The greatest theologian in church history was the apostle Paul. Would he not have included this teaching under the anointing Spirit if it were true?

The same argument could be applied to the Trinity couldn't it? It is significant that the same people who confirmed the doctrine of the Trinity also believed in theosis. Very hard to argue against, without weakening our belief in the orthodoxy of the Trinity. There is actually a good chance Athanasius would have declared you to be a heretic if you don't believe in it.

Those who believed in the full divinity of Christ in opposition to the Arian heresy such as Athanasius, also believed in the purpose of God to "make men God". Basil the Great and Gregory also and other early church people of note.

The reason I believe is, that if we believe in the full divinity of Christ, and if we believe in the sonship Paul talks about through Christ, then the sons of God (believers) should also possess the divinity. Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say. Their presentation of salvation is to escape a scary place called hell rather than to obtain an inheritance of being conformed to Christ's image. First they have to make people afraid of hell, and then preach the gospel so they are drawn to it through fear.

In Romans 8:29 it is clear that being conformed to Christ's image is the goal of salvation. Now since Christ is God, we may say that the goal of salvation is to be conformed to the image of God.

The other clear link is 2 Peter 1:3–4 as well.

It seems that Paul also implies it in Ephesians 1 when he talks about sonship. I think it is implied in Ephesians 1 where Paul teaches us about sonship with an inheritance. Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Paul also talks about being filled with the fullness of God in Ephesians 3:19.

I think if we look hard enough and keep an open mind we can see that the beliefs of the early church fathers are not in contradiction with the apostles. If we think they are, then it raises doubts about the orthodoxy of the Trinity doctrine as well and even the Creeds such as the Athanasius creed (if we value them, many churches do).

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason I believe is, that if we believe in the full divinity of Christ, and if we believe in the sonship Paul talks about through Christ, then the sons of God (believers) should also possess the divinity.

Pretty good Mr E. This is a biblical understanding/presentation. So why go beyond this? Why jump from "possess the divinity" (a biblical concept backed by "partakers of the divine nature" as taught in 2 Peter 1:4) to "becoming the divinity" as taught by Witness Lee? There is always an abject danger in going beyond what is written. In the case of the Local Church, it issued in the craziness of a bunch of gullible young Christians running around proclaiming "Hallelujah, I'm a baby God!" Of course it got even worse (and who could think that was even possible?) when those same people ran around shouting "Praise the Lord, I'm a Witness Lee tape recorder!"

Yet it seems that only evangelicals believe that we become sons of God yet don't actually look like sons of God. "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely" they say....
Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Mr E. you are clueless on what is taught in the majority of evangelical/orthodox churches. I know this because most of your posts show that your knowledge/understanding comes from Google, and not from your personal study and observation. What evangelical/orthodox Christians teach that "we are not really sons but adopted sons merely"? This kind of nonsense comes straight from the mouth of Witness Lee, who was decidedly ignorant of what is actually taught and believed in mainstream Christianity. Lee was too busy calling his brothers and sisters in Christ "Christless", "mooing cows" and "daughters of the great whore" to take a few minutes and actually know for a fact what is taught and believed.

The bottom line question/contention has been brought forth by Nell and some others. "SHOW ME! SHOW ME YOU'RE BECOMING GOD BY YOUR WORDS AND ACTIONS." If this kind of teaching is biblical and healthy, surely the main purveyor of it, after 60-70 years, should have become something very close to becoming "God in life and nature". So let's put the life and times of Witness Lee to the eyes, ears and nose test, shall we? On second thought, I don't have the time right now to give even a partial list of all the evidence. Actually, many of the threads and posts on this forum cover this evidence in vivid detail. If Witness Lee's teaching was biblical we wouldn't be here in this forum today...we would all be too busy expressing the life and nature that we had become, now wouldn't we?
-

[awareness]

Okay. Amendment to my post #299 : Can we name one?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Pretty good Mr E. This is a biblical understanding/presentation. So why go beyond this? Why jump from "possess the divinity" (a biblical concept backed by "partakers of the divine nature" as taught in 2 Peter 1:4) to "becoming the divinity" as taught by Witness Lee? There is always an abject danger in going beyond what is written. In the case of the Local Church, it issued in the craziness of a bunch of gullible young Christians running around proclaiming "Hallelujah, I'm a baby God!" Of course it got even worse (and who could think that was even possible?) when those same people ran around shouting "Praise the Lord, I'm a Witness Lee tape recorder!"

I am not sure how Lee went "beyond this", I never got the sense that he did.

Lee defines "becoming divine" as receiving another life through regeneration, which is added to our natural life. That sounds like partaking of the divine nature to me.

Lee no where teaches that the human essence becomes divine which would be heresy. Humanity stays humanity, and divinity stays divinity.
As long as human atom particles stay human and God particles (pun intended) stay God, there is no heresy.

And even though Lee believed in man becoming God, unlike John Piper, I don't know that Lee ever prayed to Saint Athanasius to thank him for it.

Here is an ultimate hypocrisy:

Evangelicals love Athanasius and CS Lewis too much to call them absolute heretics about "man becoming God" and Athanasius never explained himself fully by what he meant by that. Yet they will criticize Lee for every little suggestion that "man becomes God" when there are pages of material written to clarify the intended meaning that removes any doubt about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems that Paul also implies it in Ephesians 1 when he talks about sonship. I think it is implied in Ephesians 1 where Paul teaches us about sonship with an inheritance. Sonship is something more than is believed by most evangelicals today (as a mere signing of a legal adoption agreement to declare we are sons).

Evan, I really wish you take some time to study Paul's use of the Greek word "huiothesia." W. Lee has long used this one truth to condemn all Christians and to exalt his own ministry. We have discussed this repeatedly on the forum, but unfortunately you are so imbibed with Lee-isms that you can no longer hear.

This word huiothesia is unique to Paul, and it emphasizes the legal rights of sons as heirs to our Heavenly Father. Sorry if this is too complicated for you, since you refuse to explore the depths of the riches here. (Rom 11.33-36) Without the Spirit of God inspiring the apostle Paul to "adopt" (pun intended) this unique word, our understanding of the new birth at our regeneration would be extremely limited.

Instead you prefer to run around proclaiming yourself a "baby god," all the while condemning the rest of the body of Christ for reducing their status to the "mere signing of a legal adoption agreement" and worse. Do you really think that your arrogant attitude towards the truths of scripture and the condemnation of all other children of God will help you grow to become a full-grown son, qualifying as a legal heir to all God's wealth?

The following quotation from the above link manifests some of the riches of Christ in Paul's ministry. (Yet completely missed by W. Lee.)

“Adoption” clearly indicates that a Christian is a member of God’s family. In the Roman culture, the adopted son or daughter had four major changes: a change of family, a change of name, a change of home, and a change of responsibilities. Most importantly, by using the word “adoption,” God emphasizes that salvation is permanent for the Christian, which is why it appears only in the Church Epistles. Some versions translate huiothesia as “sonship,” but we believe that is not as good as “adoption.” While it is true that someone adopted into the family attains sonship (the status of a son), “adoption” is more accurate to the Greek meaning of the word, and it correctly expresses the fact that the adopted child is permanently placed in the family.

Birth seems so much more desirable than adoption that it is fair to ask why God would even use “adoption.” The answer is that the Romans recognized that when a baby was born, “you got what you got,” whether you liked it or not. This would include the sex of the child, birthmarks, etc. Thus, according to Roman law, a naturally born baby could be disowned from the family. However, people adopting a child knew exactly what they were getting, and no one adopted a child unless that specific child was wanted as a family member, so according to law an adopted child could not be disowned. He or she was permanently added to the family. Many early believers were Roman citizens, and using the word “adoption” was one of God’s ways to let the Church know that He chose the children brought into His family, and they could not be taken from it. The Roman historian William M. Ramsay writes:

“The Roman-Syrian Law-Book…where a formerly prevalent Greek law had persisted under the Roman Empire—well illustrates this passage of the Epistle. It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son, and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth, yet it was so.”

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan, I really wish you take some time to study Paul's use of the Greek word "huiothesia." W. Lee has long used this one truth to condemn all Christians and to exalt his own ministry. We have discussed this repeatedly on the forum, but unfortunately you are so imbibed with Lee-isms that you can no longer hear.

This word huiothesia is unique to Paul, and it emphasizes the legal rights of sons as heirs to our Heavenly Father. Sorry if this is too complicated for you, since you refuse to explore the depths of the riches here. (Rom 11.33-36) Without the Spirit of God inspiring the apostle Paul to "adopt" (pun intended) this unique word, our understanding of the new birth at our regeneration would be extremely limited.

Instead you prefer to run around proclaiming yourself a "baby god," all the while condemning the rest of the body of Christ for reducing their status to the "mere signing of a legal adoption agreement" and worse. Do you really think that your arrogant attitude towards the truths of scripture and the condemnation of all other children of God will help you grow to become a full-grown son, qualifying as a legal heir to all God's wealth?

The following quotation from the above link manifests some of the riches of Christ in Paul's ministry. (Yet completely missed by W. Lee.)

The simple reason why the "Roman law" interpretation is wrong (if taken as fact), is that we are not adopted under Roman law and neither has God ever been bound by Roman law. Gentiles especially.

This misunderstanding I believe is because people confuse a fact with the Roman adoption law analogy Paul was making.

The fact is that we are born of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23).

This misunderstanding is shown in the article I posted previously which says:

"Adoption is a legal act of God on our behalf"

So God, the one who makes the law, had to "do a legal act", doesn't really make sense considering that God is the ultimate authority, not someone bound by Roman adoption law.

Secondly, "adoption.. on our behalf" doesn't make much sense either, because it implies that we had to adopt ourselves?

The blessings of adoption are correct, but people have mistakenly taken the analogy of adoption and misapplied it as fact, suggesting, as that article above does, that God "had to do some legal things on our behalf". God was not doing anything legal - the reality is that believers are reborn (born again) of incorruptable seed by the Holy Spirit, making them sons of God in spiritual reality not merely as an agreement under law.

[Kevin]

Hank Hanegraaff, Walter Martin's Greedy Judas, the Fake Bible Answer Man

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hank Hanegraaff, Walter Martin's Greedy Judas, the Fake Bible Answer Man

If only it were true that, theosis were true. Then there might be hope for bro Hank.

[Sons to Glory!]

So in a paragraph or less, can someone summarize what this whole discussion was really about, bottom-line? (be a good "attorney" and do a very brief synopsis of both sides)

The shorter the better . . . (and if this can't be succinctly done, I don't think it's worth knowing)

As radio personality Dennis Prager says, "Clarity is better than agreement."

Thanks!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please tell us about the "life and nature" (of God) that we "become" that is apart from the "life and nature" (of God) that we do "not become". According to Witness Lee (and now you) God has two sets of lifes and natures - one that we become and one that we do not become. Again, feel free to use Lee as much as you want (and you're going to have to use Lee because nobody else teaches anything close)

Mr E.
Your two posts do not even begin to address the question at hand. Your posts conveniently left out the operative word - BECOME. To partake is not to become. To share is not to become. Witness Lee said WE BECOME GOD IN LIFE AND NATURE.

Witness Lee, knowingly, intentionally, deliberately used a specific word/term that has huge, far-reaching theological implications. Of course, as has been duly noted, Witness Lee was no theologian. He really had no business delving into such theological matters. And the more that he tried to explain away his blunders, the more he dug himself into a deeper hole. Now his followers are left to follow the same pattern - Dig and dig until you confuse the matter so badly that it becomes just plain silly.
-

[Evangelical]

This is a really silly argument because Athanasius used the term "become God" so perhaps Lee was being consistent with that?:

Athanasius said:

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

So it was Athanasius who first knowingly, intentionally, deliberately used a specific word/term that has huge, far-reaching theological implications.

Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome, Gregory of Nazianzus and others also used the term "become".

Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology also says: It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.

So maybe you should take it up with historians and early church fathers and the theologians about the use of the term, because the term is ubiquitous in Christianity.

In your previous post you interpreted "become" as two Divine lifes and natures, which amounts to saying there are two God's. That is your interpretation that there are two God's, not mine or Lee's or Athanasiu's. I don't know any Christian who would entertain the thought that there are two God's. Instead perhaps there are different meanings of the word "become", but only one life and nature.