Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Koinonia]

Hank Hanegraaff's most recent defense of the Local Church.

[UntoHim]

I wonder how many LC members know that Chris Wilde is "Director of Communications" for LSM/Local Churches?

Kind of sad that Hank Hanegraaff is still perpetuating the abject myth that he, or anyone else, with CRI did any "extensive research" into what is actually taught and practiced in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Hank still continues to insist that the authors of Open-Letter.Org "misrepresented Witness Lee" and "took everything quoted out of context". NOTHING in this open letter quotes Witness Lee out of context. The simple truth is that a false teaching is a false teaching no matter what "context" it is quoted within. And a heretical teaching is a heretical teaching no matter what context it is quoted within. False and heretical teachers have been using so called provisos and conditional statements for centuries (re: "but not in the Godhead"), but they never even begin to mitigate the blatant falseness and heresy on which many of Witness Lee's teachings are based upon.

If a man teaches that "Jesus was divine but he was not God" (common heresy taught among many Christian and non-Christian sects and cults) but with the next breath contends that "Jesus was God, but not in the sense as taught by today's Christians"...the one who states such things should be considered as a false teacher at best, and most likely is a heretic who is to be avoided at all costs.

Such is the case with many of the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee and his followers. May God have mercy.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I wonder how many LC members know that Chris Wilde is "Director of Communications" for LSM/Local Churches?

Kind of sad that Hank Hanegraaff is still perpetuating the abject myth that he, or anyone else, with CRI did any "extensive research" into what is actually taught and practiced in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Hank still continues to insist that the authors of Open-Letter.Org "misrepresented Witness Lee" and "took everything quoted out of context". NOTHING in this open letter quotes Witness Lee out of context. The simple truth is that a false teaching is a false teaching no matter what "context" it is quoted within. And a heretical teaching is a heretical teaching no matter what context it is quoted within. False and heretical teachers have been using so call provisos and conditional statements for centuries (re: "but not in the Godhead"), but they never even begin to mitigate the blatant falseness and heresy on which many of Witness Lee's teachings are based upon.

It’s sad to think how blissfully unaware all those in the LCM are to the rampant deception that is going on. Back in the 70’s when the LCM was brought under scrutiny by the counter-cult movement, there was a very distinctive PR campaign that stemmed directly from WL. It involved arrogance and combativeness. At no time was there any attempt to deal with anything tactfully, nor was there the humility to retract any questionable teachings. Needless to say, the negative reputation the LCM gained for itself was entirely their own doing.

Fast-forward to when the CRI shocked everyone with their inexplicable reversal in position on the LCM. In attempt to justify this reversal, they said things such as "we discovered that we had been profoundly mistaken about some of their teachings." To those in the LC, such statements might have come across as expressions of humility on the part of the CRI, however, what the CRI failed to do was to actually explain the exact reasons for the sudden change. They called their own credibility into question. In saying “we were wrong,” the burden of proof now lies with them to demonstrate why their current ‘research’ can be trusted.

That self-created lack of credibility on the part of the CRI is the first piece of the puzzle that doesn’t fit. The second is the change in behavior on the part of the LSM and the local churches. Now they have a paid PR person. LC leaders who have interacted with Hank and the CRI play stupid acting like all past conflict was all just a big misunderstanding. Most importantly, all of this ‘change’ on the part of the LCM didn’t involve in any kind of admission reform on their part. If they know that their past approach was wrong, then why don’t they admit to that? LCers need to be asking themselves these kinds of questions.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I wonder how many LC members know that Chris Wilde is "Director of Communications" for LSM/Local Churches?

Kind of sad that Hank Hanegraaff is still perpetuating the abject myth that he, or anyone else, with CRI did any "extensive research" into what is actually taught and practiced in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Hank still continues to insist that the authors of Open-Letter.Org "misrepresented Witness Lee" and "took everything quoted out of context". NOTHING in this open letter quotes Witness Lee out of context. The simple truth is that a false teaching is a false teaching no matter what "context" it is quoted within. And a heretical teaching is a heretical teaching no matter what context it is quoted within. False and heretical teachers have been using so called provisos and conditional statements for centuries (re: "but not in the Godhead"), but they never even begin to mitigate the blatant falseness and heresy on which many of Witness Lee's teachings are based upon.

If a man teaches that "Jesus was divine but he was not God" (common heresy taught among many Christian and non-Christian sects and cults) but with the next breath contends that "Jesus was God, but not in the sense as taught by today's Christians"...the one who states such things should be considered as a false teacher at best, and most likely is a heretic who is to be avoided at all costs.

Such is the case with many of the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee and his followers. May God have mercy.[/COLOR]
-

So what is it Mr moderator? On the one hand you condemn Lee for saying Jesus is the Father and you can't get much more "Jesus is God" than that.

On the other hand you say Lee was a heretic because Lee said "Jesus was not God" but I don't think he ever said that.

You will find that when Lee is taken into context He teaches Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and Lee teaches that Jesus is God to a fuller degree than most denominations who relegate Him to the "second person" of the Trinity. He goes so far as to say that Jesus is the Father.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So what is it Mr moderator? On the one hand you condemn Lee for saying Jesus is the Father and you can't get much more "Jesus is God" than that.

Actually, while your statement is true, that is the same as saying "The red crayon is the green crayon. You can't get more crayon than that."

Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. I am an American, but I am not Ohio (who is also American).

The problem is that Lee violates one of the foundational errors of logic. The parts of a set are not each the other parts of the set. Neither is the set simply one of the parts.

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence.

This is the theological construct that Lee sets out to violate. The Trinity is a unity, but that does not confound the persons such that the Son is the Father or the Spirit. But as God they are a single, unified One.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. I am an American, but I am not Ohio (who is also American).

I am a native American. I was born here!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, while your statement is true, that is the same as saying "The red crayon is the green crayon. You can't get more crayon than that."

Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. I am an American, but I am not Ohio (who is also American).

The problem is that Lee violates one of the foundational errors of logic. The parts of a set are not each the other parts of the set. Neither is the set simply one of the parts.
This is the theological construct that Lee sets out to violate. The Trinity is a unity, but that does not confound the persons such that the Son is the Father or the Spirit. But as God they are a single, unified One.

It's funny that you appeal to logic to explain the Trinity, which indicates you don't truly understand the Trinity at all. Those who say the Trinity is logical have likely become tritheist or unitarian. There is no possible logic that could deal with the case of God being both one and three at the same time, much less try to establish, as you have by logic, the intricacies between the 3 Persons.

The classical viewpoint is that the Trinity is a mystery, it is not logical at all.

This mystery is typically expressed in this way:

Perhaps the deepest, the most profound of all mysteries is the mystery of the Trinity. The Church teaches us that although there is only one God, yet, somehow, there are three Persons in God.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/goda22.htm

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical quotes

The Church teaches us that although there is only one God, yet, somehow, there are three Persons in God.

Yes, the church thaught the trinity. Cuz it wasn't taught by Jesus, Paul, or in New Testament times. It was a later term and invention. And now it's widely accepted dogma. It's one thing Christians have in common ... and we can pretty much thank the RCC for it.

[UntoHim]

Silly man, Jesus Christ was actually the first trinitarian. He was constantly speaking of "the Father", "my Father", "our Father", and of course the trinity is fully "revealed" in John 16 when He speaks of "The Spirit of Truth". As for the apostle Paul, well he is considered to be "the father of trinitarian theology". My man, if would would spend more time reading Romans than Bart Ehrman, you wouldn't be making such absurd statements in the first place. Not to mention you might just pick up some vital truths to rattle around in that noggin of yours.

The so-called church fathers did not "invent" the trinity or trinitarian theology, they only became the defenders and apologists of what was clearly related in the ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ and the original scripture writing apostles in the New Testament.

There's your free theology/church history lesson for the day my dear friend. Now go and sin no more!
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Hank Hanegraaff's most recent defense of the Local Church.

The revolutionary impact the Lord’s recovery has had on Hank personally as well as the ministry of CRI

I don't trust Hank. I'm on his email list. And it's money, money, money.

I know I'll likely be hated on for this, but something smells fishy. It wouldn't surprise me if Hank was suddenly healed, and theosis gets the credit, and Hank again will write something like "Lee WAS Right : about mingling and becoming god-men."

Now I don't know this, and I hate to cast dispersion's on a sick man, but I just don't trust Hank. Money, money, money.

And all I see from theosis is a propensity to wearing funny hats. There's been no Jesus since Jesus.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't trust Hank. I'm on his email list. And it's money, money, money.

I know I'll likely be hated on for this, but something smells fishy. It wouldn't surprise me if Hank was suddenly healed, and theosis gets the credit, and Hank again will write something like "Lee WAS Right : about mingling and becoming god-men."

Now I don't know this, and I hate to cast dispersion's on a sick man, but I just don't trust Hank. Money, money, money.

And all I see from theosis is a propensity to wearing funny hats. There's been no Jesus since Jesus.

One item she was particularly concerned about was CRI's paying $66,000 in July 2002 for a blue Lexus sc, purchased for Hanegraaff's use. That same year former employees said a lull in giving resulted in layoffs at the $9.3 million ministry.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...gust/6.19.html

That is an article that I came across a while back. There are a lot of things about Hank that don't add up. I didn't listen to the recording, but at the linked site for the recording, there are some headings to various parts of the recording. One of which is "The revolutionary impact the Lord’s recovery has had on Hank personally as well as the ministry of CRI." If the LC impact on Hank and the CRI was so 'revolutionary', then why didn't Hank join the LC? It is pretty obvious that the CRI's interaction with the LC goes beyond a simple defense of the LC. It is more like a promotion, and where there are promotions, there is usually money involved.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

That is an article that I came across a while back. There are a lot of things about Hank that don't add up. I didn't listen to the recording, but at the linked site for the recording, there are some headings to various parts of the recording. One of which is "The revolutionary impact the Lord’s recovery has had on Hank personally as well as the ministry of CRI." If the LC impact on Hank and the CRI was so 'revolutionary', then why didn't Hank join the LC? It is pretty obvious that the CRI's interaction with the LC goes beyond a simple defense of the LC. It is more like a promotion, and where there are promotions, there is usually money involved.

Well he's still pedaling. I got an email today at 5:30ct. He's pushing his new book "Muslim." You can pre-order it for $24.99, called a "donation," must have learned this tax dodge from LSM.

And I noticed clicking links that he keeps pushing "We Were Wrong."

I don't know about Hank, but something seems not quite right. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not buying it ... literally. I haven't ever spent a dime on anything Hank. But that doesn't stop him from thanking me for all my donations, over and over, while asking for more and more. Hank is unquestionably into mammon. And it removes all credibility of CRI, as an objective "research" organization. It's a far cry from the CRI Christian countercult movement started by Walter Martin.

[Koinonia]

Miami Herald: "How a photo of radio’s ‘Bible Answer Man’ in church lost him thousands of listeners"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Miami Herald: "How a photo of radio’s ‘Bible Answer Man’ in church lost him thousands of listeners"

Is this the kind of unity that people on this forum keep telling me exists between denominations?

But some evangelical hard-liners weren’t buying it. They seized on, for example, the Orthodox Christian traditions of asking saints to intercede with God and using icons, or holy images, of Christ, Mary and the saints for meditation and learning.

Perhaps if he had joined the local churches instead of Orthodox he would not have gotten this sort of backlash.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps if he had joined the local churches instead of Orthodox he would not have gotten this sort of backlash.

Yeah, he could follow pope Lee.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is this the kind of unity that people on this forum keep telling me exists between denominations?

But some evangelical hard-liners weren’t buying it. They seized on, for example, the Orthodox Christian traditions of asking saints to intercede with God and using icons, or holy images, of Christ, Mary and the saints for meditation and learning.

Perhaps if he had joined the local churches instead of Orthodox he would not have gotten this sort of backlash.

I don't see the problem with the backlash against Hank's sudden change. There is no reason why all his listeners should have to treat his conversion to EO like it's not a big deal.

The issue here isn't simply that he converted to EO - that itself is his own choice. If he wants to take that path, he has every right to do so, and I wish him well in his journey. The real issue, however, is that he continues to head an evangelical apologetics organization. It seems he wishes to keep a foot in both camps, even though there are fundamental principles that are contradictory.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't trust Hank. I'm on his email list. And it's money, money, money.

I know I'll likely be hated on for this, but something smells fishy. It wouldn't surprise me if Hank was suddenly healed, and theosis gets the credit, and Hank again will write something like "Lee WAS Right : about mingling and becoming god-men."

Now I don't know this, and I hate to cast dispersion's on a sick man, but I just don't trust Hank. Money, money, money.

And all I see from theosis is a propensity to wearing funny hats. There's been no Jesus since Jesus.

I don't like Hank either.. he is 'intellectual' and not spiritual imho. But that's not why I don't like him. He has always come across as a 'know it all' and I don't like 'know it alls'. I hope he recovers though.