Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E. Why do you think Hank Hanegraaff turned to the Orthodox Church instead of The Local Church of Witness Lee?..

It sounds like a cry for help to me. He saw the outward traditions as more attractive I would say. The local churches were probably not old fashioned enough and he never experienced turning to his spirit for himself. He has joined many other Christians who are going through a process called re-traditionalization, of leaving modern churches for old ones. Personally I think they are searching for God and expect to find Him in a liturgical experience. If he knew what it meant to touch his spirit and worship God in spirit and truth, then he would not need to search for these traditional experiences.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It sounds like a cry for help to me. He saw the outward traditions as more attractive I would say. The local churches were probably not old fashioned enough and he never experienced turning to his spirit for himself. He has joined many other Christians who are going through a process called re-traditionalization, of leaving modern churches for old ones. Personally I think they are searching for God and expect to find Him in a liturgical experience. If he knew what it meant to touch his spirit and worship God in spirit and truth, then he would not need to search for these traditional experiences.

Sorry, but you're not the so-called "Lord's Recovery". You've never recovered anything except copy-cat.

Witness Lee was a heretic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sorry, but you're not the so-called "Lord's Recovery". You've never recovered anything except copy-cat.

There was a parallel movement in the US at the same time as the Recovery Movement among the Plymouth Brethren in England, and subsequently with Nee in China, and Lee in the US.

It was called the Restoration Movement and resulted in the Churches of Christ. There are many similarities. Both have long made claims of superiority as to the rest of the body of Christ, both judging the failures of the whole, and exalting themselves as uniquely superior. We could say the same of the Reformation Movement.

Yes indeed many traditions were shed and hearts returned again to His word and to Him as their first love. No doubt every one of these were a move of the Spirit of God. Yet over time all have merely created new traditions, settled into the old ways, and once again became puffed up by their achievements. This pattern usually only takes one generation, and future generations merely cling to their unique teachings and uplift their founder as special in the body.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There was a parallel movement in the US at the same time as the Recovery Movement among the Plymouth Brethren in England, and subsequently with Nee in China, and Lee in the US.

It was called the Restoration Movement and resulted in the Churches of Christ. There are many similarities. Both have long made claims of superiority as to the rest of the body of Christ, both judging the failures of the whole, and exalting themselves as uniquely superior. We could say the same of the Reformation Movement.

Yes indeed many traditions were shed and hearts returned again to His word and to Him as their first love. No doubt every one of these were a move of the Spirit of God. Yet over time all have merely created new traditions, settled into the old ways, and once again became puffed up by their achievements. This pattern usually only takes one generation, and future generations merely cling to their unique teachings and uplift their founder as special in the body.

The Restoration Movement came out of the 2nd Great Awakening in the early 1800s. A couple other groups came out besides the "Church of Christ," but they are the biggest by far.

And what you said (bolded above) I think is very true! In reading church history, that is what seems to happen. Basically, unless we humans are having a fresh experience and seeing of Christ, we will just resort to forms and symbols - and especially the next gen. It could be argued that the so called "Pilgrim Church" (I prefer "Primitive Church" so as to avoid confusion), as expounded on by Broadbent in his excellent account of the same name, had a superior longevity than all the formalized groups. These ones (called by various names - or no names - over 1500+ years) focused on Christ and His word. Period.

And we're getting to see what happens when the focus is not on Christ and His word firsthand in the LC!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E. Why do you think Hank Hanegraaff turned to the Orthodox Church instead of The Local Church of Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It sounds like a cry for help to me. He saw the outward traditions as more attractive I would say. The local churches were probably not old fashioned enough and he never experienced turning to his spirit for himself....If he knew what it meant to touch his spirit and worship God in spirit and truth, then he would not need to search for these traditional experiences.

Outward traditions? Almost nobody has more outward traditions than the Local Church of Witness Lee. - 7 feasts, trainings, conferences, prophesying meetings, morning watch, Calling on the Lord, Pray Reading....the list goes on! "Old fashioned" you say? Heck, the Local Church is not much behind the Amish in the old fashioned category. I mean, the colorless garb that they make the FTTer's wear makes some of the Mormons look kinda hip Seriously, we've just recently heard from someone that says that one of the big reasons they are not going to attend the FTT is because of the drab uniform.

So Hank was among you guys for 6 long years and didn't know how to touch his spirit? Really? This sounds more like a problem with the teachers more than the student. Well maybe if Hanegraaff had spent more time learning the Local Church lingo and traditions instead writing amicus briefs and publishing driveling, pathetic retractions, he would be standing, pumping his first and calling "OOOOOHHHH, LLLOOOOORRRRRD, JEEEEEESUS as I write this post.
-

[Evangelical]

So they are not going to the FTT because they care too much about their appearance . That says more about them than the training doesn't it?

[awareness]

CRI can't claim to be against Christian cults any longer, if Hank is their example.

First they said that Lee's local church was a cult. Then they said they were wrong. Then Hank joins another cult.

CRI is now actually cult friendly.

[Evangelical]

As much as people would like to think that Hank chose the EOC to "get away from" the local churches, that is probably not the case. He chose the EOC because of Watchman Nee's teachings and a desire to be made God. For this reason a better question to ask is why did he not stay in evangelicalism? (because they don't teach about becoming God).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

(because they don't teach about becoming God).

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

Yet not a single verse to support such a teaching.

All they got are a few lines from Athanasius.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow, I think theosis has became one of the tenets of the Christian Faith.

The historical evidence is overwhelming that deification was a fundamental aspect of the doctrine of salvation in the time of the early church. Those who defined the Trinity against heresies all believed in it. We may say that salvation without deification is not really salvation at all, to emphasize the important that it held in the early church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As much as people would like to think that Hank chose the EOC to "get away from" the local churches, that is probably not the case. He chose the EOC because of Watchman Nee's teachings and a desire to be made God. For this reason a better question to ask is why did he not stay in evangelicalism? (because they don't teach about becoming God).

Oh! So Hank thinks the EO is better at theosis than the local church. And when has Hank not been wrong?

[Sons to Glory!]

So do Nee's teachings promote theosis (I guess I've learned a new word)?

My thinking is that most of us (i.e., Christians) don't have much of a revelation of who we really have been made in Christ. Most Christian speakings I have an opportunity to listen to on radio or TV are more concerned with the redemption aspect of the good news, and then what we must do afterward - but they preach it mostly in an Old Covenant way. It is rare when one of these ones will expound well on "what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints."

There is so, so much more to be seen in scripture regarding who we really are in Him! My current understanding of this revelation in scripture is we are being made one in life and nature with God (e.g., John 17), but that we do not become part of the omnipotent Godhead, right?

But from what I've read on here, many think WL crossed over that line - is that correct?