Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
So the 70 theologians on the open-letter.org site pointed out four errors - two theological things and two things more regarding practices. Do we agree that a good place to start on the key errors would be these two theological things, since this is what the theologians focused on?
If so, the theological teachings they focused on were the Modalism and the "man becomes God" things. So of those two, which do you think is the most egregious?
|
I think on this thread we should consider the Hanegraaff video, and you bring up your questions on a different thread. Hanegraaff would consider himself a “theologian”, and here on the video he is talking about wanting to publish a book before he joins himself to some Orthodox Church because he is afraid of what they may think of him and his book, but he and his wife long to be able to partake of communion, which he seems to now consider the actual partaking of the body and blood of Jesus ( transsubstanciation?) because this is what the “ancient” church believed and practiced, and this is what should now in his theology be the come-together catalyst which Francis Chan is looking for and wondering about. The other fellow thinks humility and not making a business out of the things of God is important? Francis Chan has the deer in the headlights look as he listens to both of them- like what am I supposed to do with this? Stuck in the middle of all this is Hanegraaff praising the “recovery”, the thing he once labeled as a cult, now being the cat’s pajamas. If one can make sense out of any of this and feel any of what is spoken is the new way, God’s up to date move, the pillar of truth, etc., please be my tutor, because I think I’m flunking out in this class.