Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Saint Steven said:

No, the texts/writers are clearly in conflict.

James disagrees that salvation is by faith alone, and Paul disagrees that salvation is by works. This is an obvious conflict which most Christians will not own, because it is unthinkable to claim that the Bible is not in complete agreement with itself.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier in the thread there are three points that James and Paul could be speaking of different things such that there is no need for conflict. What does each mean by justification? What does each mean by works? and what does each mean by by? Context of the passages must be considered to determine if they're using the terms in the same way, and based on contextual analysis it appears to me that James and Paul mean different things by "by," as Paul is speaking of the effective means and James is speaking of the expression of those means. Both use the exact same example of Genesis 15:6 to justify their points and take it in different directions. Yet it is the same, Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Clare73 said:

In the NT, "righteousness" is a state of guiltlessness, imputed to us through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as well as growth in sanctification (righteousness) through obedience after justification.

So what does given mean?

Click to expand...

It means that righteousness is not strictly a matter of forgiveness of sin but that we're actually made personally righteous, a state of being we can and will embrace and act on to the extent that we remain in Christ and He in us -or that we can depart from. Either way, we'll be judged on what we do and are, not on what we're merely imputed to be. At the end of the day a snow-covered dung-heap isn't really any different from a white -washed tomb, both being clean on the outside while filthy on the inside. Jesus wants us clean on the inside first if all. And this occurs as we turn to Him in faith and authentic righteousness is given even if only in seedling form to begin with, requiring us to act on and nurture and exercise this gift.

Clare73 said:

Keeping in mind that Luther was a Catholic monk, deep in the heart of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

I have taught faith alone, as taught by Luther in Catholic fellowships and prayer groups. Luther opposed the failing of the men of the Church in his day. We can argue whether he should simply have accepted the corruption or not. But, make no mistake, Luther was a follower of the faith, well understood and preached the Scriptures, and in no way should be considered to be otherwise.
+

Fervent said:

It's my understanding that the works themselves are claimed to get their merits through the cross rather than being rooted in the things being done. The whole breakdown of the theological grounds is complex, but protestants express the need for further sanctification by saying things like "Salvation by faith alone, but it is a faith that is never alone." whereas the Catholics and Orthodox speak of a the works being expressions of a faith in the grace. Even in Trent's anathema of faith alone it presents a strawman version of the protestant declaration by saying that it is belief in the justification that is considered to be faith rather than belief in Christ as justifier. There are real divides, but polemics and politics make them wider than the theological space they tend to occupy.

Click to expand...

Well I don't think Trent presented a "strawman". I think the canon states "If anyone saith." It does not state "Here is what the Protestants say". The issue there was that when the common man on the street at the time heard the word "faith alone" he would probably think something like "mere intellectual belief" not something like "a true saving faith that works through love". So that view needed to be condemned if for nothing else so as to not confuse the common man on the streets. If "faith" is understood as something like ""a true saving faith that works through love" I don't think that the phrase "a person is saved by faith alone" is particularly problematic. Neither did Pope Benedict:

fhansen said:

IMO this seems to get "precariously" close to the Catholic doctrine that rightpoeunss is not strictly imputed at justification, 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?

Click to expand...

This is hard, because righteousness has a range of meaning, from an acceptable status before God to being moral.

I think in Calvin (and Paul) righteousness is both imputed and infused, though they don't use the term infused. But these two things are conceptually distinct, although not separated. Justification is imputed righteousness. When Paul talks about justification by faith, I think he's using righteousness primarily to mean proper status before God. God recognizes faith as a sign that we are his, and calls us righteous. (Calvin apparently doesn't understand that righteousness can refer to status, and thus thinks that God is crediting us with Christ's moral righteousness. However in the overall scheme this is still imputed righteousness, as opposed to the infused that I'm about to talk about.) N T Wright suggests that we are recognized as righteous based on faith in part because of the changed life that God knows will result.

But in Rom 6:16 Paul uses righteousness as the opposite to sin. That gives it a moral character. Rom 6 suggests a kind of righteousness that results from our union with Christ, dying and rising with him. Paul doesn't call it infused, but it's not an impossible term. Calvin comments on this in the following terms:

"Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him." (Institutes, 3.11.10)

But Calvin is clear that this is a result of being in Christ, and not a prerequisite for righteousness to be imputed.

The Reformed tradition is known for coupling works more closely with justification than some other Protestant traditions. Thus there are Protestants that think we do in fact come too close to the Catholic position. The situation is further complicated because the Catholic and Protestant traditions use different definitions of justification.

Saint Steven said:

That's fine but... Is there something false about my "opinion"?

James disagrees that salvation is by faith alone, and Paul disagrees that salvation is by works. This is an obvious conflict which most Christians will not own, because it is unthinkable to claim that the Bible is not in complete agreement with itself.

Saint Steven said: ↑
I understand that, but the texts clearly disagree. Doctrinal gymnastics are required to make them agree somehow.

Click to expand...

I disagree, but I don't particularly care to have a debate about that. I'd rather spend my energy elsewhere. It's nothing personal.

Saint Steven said:

Are you prepared to list them? Or was that a more general thought?

Click to expand...

No, Steven. It was a general thought, and I think the listing of these problems is a group effort.

Clare73 said:

That had a little heat on it. . .

Click to expand...

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet! Unless of course, you have already seen me taking on various skeptics. Some of that I might have to rethink, though.

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

Click to expand...

There could be some, here and there. But I tend to only cross that bridge when it crosses me.

For the most part, I'm more concerned about addressing the matter of a faith that has no charity and no beneficence; no love. Now, THAT's a problem, one that I can sink my teeth into!

fhansen said:

It means that righouness is not strictly a matter of forgiveness of sin but that we're actually made personally righteous,

Click to expand...

Okay. . .we just use different terminology. . .I see sanctification through faith and obedience as actual personal growth in righteousness, not as just "given" to me, and which you've just stated as "actually made personally righteous," which are exactly the same.

So it seems we are agreed on the nature of 1) imputed righteousness (guiltlessness) and
2) personal growth in righteousness through obedience.

Or are we?

a state of being we can and will embrace and act on to the extent that we remain in Christ and He in us -or that we can depart from. Either way, we'll be judged on what we do and are, not on what we're merely imputed to be. At the end of the day a snow-covered dung-heap isn't really any different from a white -washed tomb, both being clean on the outside while filthy on the inside. Jesus wants us clean on the inside first if all. And this occurs as we turn to Him in faith and authentic righteousness is given even if only in seedling form to begin with, requiring us to act on and nurture and exercise this gift.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

This is where Catholicism (in all its many forms) and Protestantism part company, unless we give a broader definition to "functional successors".
..

Click to expand...

I believe that the leaders of almost all the traditional churches would welcome a ecumenical council that would include, at a minimum: EO, OO, RCC, Anglicans and Lutherans. I believe that Presbyterians and Methodists would also participate.

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...

More fundamental is whether you are counting on God's Grace for admission or adherence to your own interpretation of Scripture.

Swag365 said:

Well I don't think Trent presented a "strawman". I think the canon states "If anyone saith." It does not state "Here is what the Protestants say". The issue there was that when the common man on the street at the time heard the word "faith alone" he would probably think something like "mere intellectual belief" not something like "a true saving faith that works through love". So that view needed to be condemned if for nothing else so as to not confuse the common man on the streets. If "faith" is understood as something like ""a true saving faith that works through love" I don't think that the phrase "a person is saved by faith alone" is particularly problematic. Neither did Pope Benedict:

General Audience of 19 November 2008: Saint Paul (13). The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith | BENEDICT XVI

Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened the Israelite identity but also the faith in the one God and in his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a shield of defence to protect the precious heritage of the faith; this wall consisted precisely in the Judaic observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances in their role of defending God's gift, of the inheritance of faith in one God alone, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of the Christians this is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's Resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all peoples. The wall as he says in his Letter to the Ephesians between Israel and the Gentiles, was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us from polytheism and all of its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).​

Click to expand...

Yes, but the anathemas weren't aimed at the common man but were aimed at the magisterial reformers. The disagreements were not primarily theological, the theological phrasings and presentations were to paper over political disagreements such as the propriety of indulgences and the power of the pope. Overtime the polemics on the issue have made it so it's nearly impossible to have a dialogue on the theological grounds because everyone is working with different definitions and the Biblical verses are infused with nuances from the debate rather than the context. The works denounced by the reformers were specific religious ordinances that the church was essentially selling forgiveness through, not general piety and the phrase "faith alone" was a rallying cry against those works in particular so Trent's anathema's were attacking a false notion of that phrase, which is exactly what a strawman does.

mark46 said:

I guess the Nicene Creed and the teachings of the councils represent only a few central ideas?

Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd put it that way. I'd rather say that the Creeds nicely sum up the generally agreed upon doctrines that we believe were deposited by Jesus among His Apostles. But I think we all realize to some degree taht the Creeds themselves don't deal with every nuance about the world at large or how we're to read, interpret or in all cases apply the Bible.

mark46 said:

I believe that the leaders of almost all the traditional churches would welcome a ecumenical council that would include, at a minimum: EO, OO, RCC, Anglicans and Lutherans. I believe that Presbyterians and Methodists would also participate.

Click to expand...

That would be complicated by the conservative / liberal splits in both traditions. Remember that the more conservative Lutherans didn't accept the Catholic / Lutheran agreement on justification. I think liberal Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists agree on many issues, and consider the others permissible variations. But I'm not so sure conservatives of any of those traditions are prepared to consider differences acceptable. Nor would the Catholic hierarchy accept liberal Catholicism as representing their tradition in many key issues.

Basically, conservative Protestants won't accept Catholics for doctrinal reasons and liberal ones because of differences on gender and sex in Official Catholic positions, even though we'd be fine with most actual Catholics in the West, including the Pope.

Saint Steven said:

Right. That is the doctrinal gymnastics I am referring to.

Saint Steven said: ↑
No, the texts/writers are clearly in conflict.

James disagrees that salvation is by faith alone, and Paul disagrees that salvation is by works. This is an obvious conflict which most Christians will not own, because it is unthinkable to claim that the Bible is not in complete agreement with itself.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a seeming 'rub' between Paul and James, but what I notice quite often is that when varoius of our fellow Christians on one side of the divide or the other start debating this issue, they do so in piecemeal formations rather than engaging and studying the entirety of the books and letter between Paul and James that are supposoedly the locus of the conflict. And it is this that I'd plead with my fellow Chritians to do a little better on. We can do better, and thereby hopefully reduce some of the contentions about that seeming issue.

Saint Steven said:

Right. That is the doctrinal gymnastics I am referring to.

Saint Steven said: ↑
No, the texts/writers are clearly in conflict.

James disagrees that salvation is by faith alone, and Paul disagrees that salvation is by works. This is an obvious conflict which most Christians will not own, because it is unthinkable to claim that the Bible is not in complete agreement with itself.

Click to expand...

It seems to me you're infusing the protestant/catholic debate into the picture and setting two extremes that aren't necessary to set. If there is such an obvious conflict why did it take 1500 years before anyone in the church mentioned it? Why didn't any critics highlight this supposed conflict? No, there's no conflict because they're speaking to different issues and James is addressing a distortion of what it means to be justified by faith rather than what Paul is speaking to. There's no real reason to set the two at odds without the added context of the Reformation debates informing the question.