Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Fervent said:

There are three places where James could have a different meaning in mind regarding the issue: what does he mean by "justified?" What does he mean by "works?" and what does he mean by "by?" If any of those are something other than how the issue is being discussed James' point is decidedly different from what it is presented as.(And it seems to me the difference is in what he means by "by")

Click to expand...

Sure. I'll grant you that the passage is open to different interpretations (as are many parts of Scripture).

As to the thread, evangelicalism isn't a religion per se but it emphasizes an aspect of Christianity that other strands don't. Christianity is necessarily exclusionary, we cannot simply accept all beliefs as being part of the fold as not everyone who says they are Christian is Christian. Evangelicalism simply plays on a tendency that carves out a tighter circle of acceptable beliefs to be part of the inner circle, as it is intended to welcome the person but not the beliefs but there is no real way to separate a person from what they believe.

Click to expand...

It seems that most denominations work this way.

Clare73 said:

But law keeping is not the basis of the righteousness/justification that saves, and is not the basis for determining who are the righteous sons of God at the Final Judgment.

Click to expand...

Actually, to put it in most concise terms, love is " the basis for determining who are the righteous sons of God at the Final Judgment." Because love fulfills the law as mentioned in Rom 2:13 as well as in Matt 19:17. Love produces the good that we must do to inherit eternal life as per Rom 2:7. Love does "for the least of these", the basis for judgment in Matt 25. Love, through the Spirit who gives it (Rom 5:5) overcomes the deeds of the flesh as outlined in Rom 8:12-13.

Love is the heart and soul of Christianity, the motivation behind everything Jesus said and did and the motivation He wants us to have as He transforms us into His own image. As a teaching I'm familiar with instructs:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Dave L said:

But, don't the works you perform make you the savior, not Jesus?

Click to expand...

No.

Jesus saves first so you can do good works.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

fhansen said:

And yet do it they must-and can with the grace of God. Again, the New Covenant in no way excuses man from his obligation to be righteous. It simply, finally when the time became ripe, provides the only right and authentic means to fulfilling that obligation-via communion with God. "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Adam had thought otherwise in Eden-and the rest is history. He became his own "god", doing what was right in his own eyes-and that means a lot of sin will prevail, as it has in our world, until man comes back into the relationship with God that he was absolutely made for. And as he enters that new life the struggle isn't over- he must now decide daily as to whether not not he'll remain on that path, remaining in Him, with every moral choice he makes. And its possible to stray far, too far. But a change of heart and repentance is always possible with God.

Anyway, faith doesn't oppose the law, but absolutely upholds it; by providing the means to fulfill it without being under it.

Click to expand...

So yes, "The larger context is Paul's demonstration of the unrighteousness of all mankind", because he is speaking of justification here-and how the Jews, as our examples, failed to obtain it. And so he tells us what all mankind must do. In Rom 2:6 he quotes Ps 62 & Prov 24:
"God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”"

Click to expand...

And in the next verse continues:
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

Click to expand...

Which fallen man cannot do. . .but IF they could, God would give them eternal life.
But since they cannot, eternal life is only by faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, wherein the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to them, law-keeping not with standing in eternal life and sonship.

So in the larger context Rom 2:13 stands just fine as it reads:
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

Click to expand...

Did someone challenge the way it read? I missed that. . .

Saint Steven said:

Though I was raised Evangelical, I have moved steadily away from it for most of my Christian life. To the point where I now see it as an exclusionary religion with a militant zeal for a theological platform.

When the church should be facing the world with open arms of acceptance and love, Evangelicalism stands with arms crossed and an off-putting scowl. Which is quite apparent in this video below. Notice the demeanor, purpose and message of these two former friends, John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraff.

What spirit do you discern in these two presentations?

Hank Hanegraff was Chrismated into the Orthodox Church in April 2017. About a month later, his friend John MacArthur, without mentioning Hanegraaff by name, denounced his conversion during a sermon, saying “it is not to be joined, it is to be cursed" because it rejects the doctrine of faith alone. (As a note, MacArthur basically says that knowledge and belief in the doctrine of faith alone is necessary to be saved, which completely undermines his position).

Hanegraaff responds to these criticisms with references to scripture, and elaborates the historical context of doctrinal expression.

As a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, Hanegraaff still hasn’t shed many of his former heterodox presuppositions, and has clear ecuminist tendencies (which I edited out of his response). Nevertheless, given his stature in the media, he has opened a path for many into Orthodoxy, which should be commended; and the mischaracterizations his former colleagues throw at the Ancient Church are just that.

Click to expand...

Is Evangelicalism a false religion? I didn't know Evangelicalism was a religion but was, rather, just a disposition of view, a label, within the Christian religion.

It seems, though, that you're making John MacArthur representative of all evangelical Christians (at least, within Protestantism), but doing so, it seems to me, is no more appropriate in this instance than it would be to make the thinking and behaviour of one black person representative of all black people. We call such thinking logically fallacious - and racist.

Does Jesus throw wide his arms to the world with acceptance and love? He loves the world, that is, the human creatures that occupy it, but because he does, he calls them all sinners in need of a Saviour, and commands their repentance from their godless, sinful lives, and warns them of the future Judgment and wrath of God waiting for the unrepentant sinner who dies in his/her sin. Jesus loves the lost but he does not accept them as such, but declares, "You must be born-again!" (John 3:3-7)

It is because the Gospel contains the truth of sin, condemnation, judgment and punishment, as well as mercy, grace, love and salvation that there are "few who find it." Broad is the way that leads to destruction, Jesus said, but narrow and difficult the way that leads to life and God. (Matthew 7:13-14) "Whosoever will may come" to salvation (Revelation 22:7), but few actually will endure the humbling, the crucifixion of Self (Matthew 16:24-25; John 12:24-25; Galatians 2:20), that the Narrow Way requires.

The Gospel, then, expresses love, yes, absolutely, but it does not preach acceptance without standards or requirements. In fact, Scripture says that a believer who is a friend of the World is the enemy of God! (James 4:4) The Christian believer is to be "crucified unto the World" (Galatians 6:14), standing in resolute opposition to its philosophies, values, and carnal pursuits. (Colossians 2:8)

In any event, your OP seems to be guilty of the same disapproving attitude you are condemning in John MacArthur. It seems you think its quite okay when you scowl verbally at MacArthur and cross your arms, so to speak, at his treatment of Hannegraaff. Romans 2:3

Swag365 said:

No.

Absolutely.

Click to expand...

So then how do Catholic works save as opposed to biblical works?

Clare73 said:

The serious issue remains: whether or not you are relying on your performance to qualify for heaven.

That is no small matter in the NT. . .and to the poor soul living under the burden of that perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9), never having the peace of knowing what is his eternal destiny.

Click to expand...

Clare, I don't think anyone who is of Trinitarian tradition here is working with the understanding that their overall performance qualifies them for heaven, especially not apart from the salvific work of Jesus Christ our Savior.

No, what what was going on in and among the Galatian church was a bit different than what has been going on between Catholics and Protestants in their argumentation for the last 500 years. It's also different than whatever differences lie between John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraaff in the OP.

DISCLAIMER: And before anyone starts in on a side trek through a debate about the nature of the conflict we see briefly described by Paul in the letter to the Galatians, or any other book in the N.T., I'm just going to make it clear that I will not get into a lengthy exchange with anyone who does ONLY piecemeal, pearl stringing quotations of Bible verses and is also unwilling to sit down with me and discuss THROUGH AN ENTIRE LETTER OR N.T. BOOK for comprehensive hermeneutical understanding. Not going to do it!!! I'm not going to play that hokey game of "let's play not-really-hermeneutical roulette"!!!

fhansen said:

Then there's no problem; they will meet the requirements of Rom 2:13, fulfilling the law as our Lord modeled, and gives us the same power to do as we remain in Him. "Your sins are forgiven; go and sin no more."

Righteousness isn't only imputed; it's given.

Click to expand...

I think those are the same, aren't they?

We as believers possess the seeds for justice/righteousness, now we must go on to live and act like, as children of God. We must take advantage of our new position, we must invest our talents. We remain under obligation to be righteous but
now have the true means to achieve it.

Click to expand...

How much do we achieve in this life?. . .All of it?
When that happens, do we no longer need the righteousness of Jesus Christ that was imputed to us in our rebirth?
Or is our achievement in this life, at best, always incomplete?

When we're fully bound to God, loving Him above all else with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength, our perfection will have been attained, our purpose fulfilled like a flower that has fully blossomed.

Click to expand...

Dave L said:

So then how do Catholic works save as opposed to biblical works?

Click to expand...

Another loaded question. I never said that "Catholic works save." And obviously I believe that the Catholic doctrine on justification teaches "biblical works." If you want the full explanation of that, you'll need to carefully study the two documents I mentioned earlier.

If you would like a TLDR, the Catholic Church teaches that works justify the man who is in Christ (the man who is already "saved" if we are using your terminology). Works do not justify any random person who does something good.

Trent states it like this:
Having, therefore, been thus justified and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day, that is, mortifying the members of their flesh, and presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified, as it is written:
He that is just, let him be justified still; and, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and again, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

Swag365 said:

If you are asking me where you can find the truth concerning these matters, please read the Council of Trent, Session 6, in it's entirety. If you would like something more modern, please refer to the Joint Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification.

Click to expand...

Regarding justification, where did the Catholic Church come out on that?

fhansen said:

Actually, to put it in most concise terms, love is " the basis for determining who are the righteous sons of God at the Final Judgment." Because love fulfills the law as mentioned in Rom 2:13 as well as in Matt 19:17. Love produces the good that we must do to inherit eternal life as per Rom 2:7. Love does "for the least of these", the basis for judgment in Matt 25. Love, through the Spirit who gives it (Rom 5:5) overcomes the deeds of the flesh as outlined in Rom 8:12-13.

Love is the heart and soul of Christianity, the motivation behind everything Jesus said and did and the motivation He wants us to have as He transforms us into His own image. As a teaching I'm familiar with instructs:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Click to expand...

You left out saving faith (Jn 3:18, 36). . .lots of people love, but they don't believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and they will be judged as a goat.

Clare73 said:

Regarding justification, where did the Catholic Church come out on that?

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean. But from what I understand Trent and the Joint Declaration are the two most important formal teachings that the Catholic Church has on that topic, which remain in effect. Perhaps there are others that I have missed.

In my opinion, once the significant differences in terminology are bridged, the most significant difference between Catholic and Protestant theology when it comes to justification, is that the Catholic Church teaches that justification can be lost through the commission of "mortal sins" while Protestants generally teach that justification can be lost only through a loss of faith.

2PhiloVoid said:

Clare, I don't think anyone who is of Trinitarian tradition here is working with the understanding that their overall performance qualifies them for heaven, especially not apart from the salvific work of Jesus Christ our Savior.

No, what what was going on in and among the Galatian church was a bit different than what has been going on between Catholics and Protestants in their argumentation for the last 500 years. It's also different than whatever differences lie between John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraaff in the OP.

DISCLAIMER: And before anyone starts in on a side trek through a debate about the nature of the conflict we see briefly described by Paul in the letter to the Galatians, or any other book in the N.T., I'm just going to make it clear that I will not get into a lengthy exchange with anyone who does ONLY piecemeal, pearl stringing quotations of Bible verses and is also unwilling to sit down with me and discuss THROUGH AN ENTIRE LETTER OR N.T. BOOK for comprehensive hermeneutical understanding. Not going to do it!!! I'm not going to play that hokey game of "let's play not-really-hermeneutical roulette"!!!

Click to expand...

That had a little heat on it. . .

Would you say there are any in the Trinitarian tradition who believe their "works" are about merit?

hedrick said:

If you consider justification to be purely forensic, it is a declaration based on the recognition that we are new people though faith and union with Christ.

Click to expand...

IMO this seems to get "precariously" close to the Catholic doctrine that righteousness is not strictly imputed at justification, consisting of forgiveness only, but given/infused. And, why in fact, would new creations in Christ bother to act righteously unless they were now, in some manner actually given righteousness, even as the essence of that righteousness is the very union with God that Calvin speaks of?

Saint Steven said:

This is a good example of conflicting scriptures. James says, "by works" and Paul says, "not by works". What to do, what to do... ??? Paul also writes this.

Romans 4:4-5
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the Scriptures conflict, but I can understand why many people conclude that they do (at first glance at least). I think it was one of the primary reasons why Martin Luther held such a low view of James, he could not reconcile what what written there with his theology.

Swag365 said:

Sure. I'll grant you that the passage is open to different interpretations (as are many parts of Scripture).

It seems that most denominations work this way.

Click to expand...

It's more than simply being open to different interpretations, especially if James means something different by "by." In essence, is James declaring that the works are the underlying reason for the justification, or the chosen method? It seems James has in mind that the works are not the efficient cause, since he quotes the same Scripture Paul quotes to justify a by faith justification of "Abraham believed God". So effectively, even though James uses the words "justified by works" the context of the passage illustrates that those works are an expression of the faith that is the root of justification.

Clare73 said:

I think those are the same, aren't they?

Click to expand...

No. Imputed means declared righteous in spite of whether or not the justified individual is actually given justice, made personally righteous IOW. All of creation was made good, and intended to be "right" in its own way according to its created nature. And in a sense this involves union with God for any aspect of creation but for non-human and non-angelic beings that union isn't optional. For man it is.

Clare73 said:

How much do we achieve in this life?. . .All of it?
When that happens, do we no longer need the righteousness of Jesus Christ that was imputed to us in our rebirth?
Or is our achievement in this life, at best, always incomplete?

Click to expand...

He'll get us there to the extent that we remain in Him, even if that's not ultimately finished until the next life. But in this life we must at least be heading upwards as evidenced by our behavior, living as children of God and drawing even nearer to Him, not neutral let alone moving in the opposite direction.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." Gal 6:7-8

At the end of the day God judges how much is enough, how well we've done with what we've been given.