Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,940
3,539
✟323,737.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, some seem to believe that they can set the rules based on their interpretation of Scripture. They can which folks God will choose based on behavior (which includes statements of faith).

I do NOT think that the issue is semantic. Protestants seem to believe that more is required than God's Grace, God's Reward At Christ's Expense. How could any more be required. How could a staement of faith be required? How could baptism be required? God will choose who he wills to choose.
And that choice can still be based on how we choose-if that's what He wants. In Catholic understanding it's all a matter of grace; the faith given us, the justification received, the works mentioned in Eph 2:10, works of love with which we work our our salvation. It's all a matter of God's life, of the Holy Spirit, operating in us. But we can still always resist that grace-that's where man's role comes into play. We aren't forced to remain in Him and to do His will, to endure and persevere to the end. And at some point of our resistance He will no longer remain in us.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I have no examples from before Luther.

All I am saying is that there is an obvious textual disagreement. (which didn't make the headlines until Luther) This seems to be a REAL hot potato. - lol

The textual disagreement didn't magically appear when Luther found it. It was there all along. Like Edison's light bulb. He saw the light. - lol --- Electricity existed before Edison.

Saint Steven said:
No, it is not my intention to create a protestant/catholic debate. The faith versus works debate has been raging for some time. Why no one can see that is beyond me. The debate is based on the obvious conflict of these texts. IMHO --- It seems to me that the majority doesn't want to own it. Because we can't fathom a Bible that is in conflict with itself.

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.
Right, perhaps you didn't understand my example. There certainly appears to be a conflict if we only consider a single dimension and we assume that the two must be mutually exclusive, in that they are legitimately speaking to the same issues. Yet it seems to me that if we look to the context to identify what they're speaking to they don't actually address the same thing, and are in fact complementary. Yet it's difficult to see their complementary nature because theology has been so infused with the debate between the Reformers and Catholics that it's become natural to read each in support of opposite camps. In 2 dimensions, it looks like there's going to be a crash but if we add a 3rd we see there is no danger.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,211
6,169
North Carolina
✟278,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree there is nuance, but they both refer explicitly to Abraham's justification in Genesis 15:6 as the impetus. James speaks to the realization of faith(You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; ),
It's that 40-year gap between Abraham's justification (Ge 15:6) and his "realization of faith" which just makes no sense in light of Paul's teaching on justification.

Is James using a different meaning for "righteousness". . .that it's a state we achieve and God simply recognizes. . .which again is totally contrary to Paul's revelation?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,413.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If you haven't already gathered this already, my doctrinal position on the final judgment is Universal Restoration. The Damnationist view is built on double predestination. (if I understand you correctly) Meaning, those who were not predestined to heaven were predestined to hell.

We have taught how to act in this life by the example of Jesus and the saints. We have been provided with the fellowship nd leadership of the Church. We are taught NOT to judge what is the heart of another. We are to love our enemies, and that doesn't mean to torture them and call that love. So, we taught how to BE God's love in this world. We have been given the spiritual disciplines to help us allow the Holy Spirit act through us.

Are there other systems of action to allow us to live according to The Way of Jesus. That is, systems other than traditional Christianity? The Orthodox have one answer. God is in this House, this fellowship. I do NOT know where else God is, and where God is NOT. Personally, I have no question that there are other paths up the mountain. How cruel would be any other understanding.

Will everyone be restored to God's Grace for eternity? Perhaps a time of purification is required? Perhaps more time on earth is required. I cannot know.
=================
As my mentor once taught us, "how will this understanding affect your life, how you act in the world?

Perhaps being apart of a small group of folks who will go to heaven is a comfortable teaching for some folks. For me, it certainly is not.
====================
I suggesting considering the books related to evangelicals and Catholics praying together. I suggest that it would useful to have discussions with Buddhists. After months of discussions and prayer, my suggestion is their actions, and their reasons for actions would be little different from Christians. The Sermon On the Mount could have preached by a close friend of the Buddha.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's that 40-year gap between Abraham's justification (Ge 15:6) and his "works which justified him" that is a glaring problem.
Is James using a different meaning for "righteousness". . .that it's a state we achieve and God simply recognizes. . .which is totally contrary to Paul's revelation?
It need not be atomized in such a manner, after all Hebrews 11 identifies Abraham as having faith(and works) as early as Genesis 12. Was he not justified by his faith there, but only years later when God declared him righteous in Genesis 15?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,413.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, the texts/writers are clearly in conflict.
.

at some point, I might actually respond to this conundrum

For now, I have been long taught that Christianity is about paradoxy as much as orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,940
3,539
✟323,737.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There is the 1) righteousness of justification (declared "not guilty") -- imputed

and the 2) righteousness of sanctification through obedience, which is actual personal growth in righteousness.

Redemption of man's fallen nature is a process begun in time, but not completed until the renewal of all things at the second coming, and still must be dealt with.
In Catholic teaching justification and sanctification are inseparable. Justification is the beginning of salvation, and it's all a process not completed until God says it is, until we're finally fully bound to Him in heart and will where our sanctity would be complete.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,413.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

I did overstep a bit. I believe that very large parts of the "liberal" wings of the various churches would welcome a council, certainly including the WLF and the Anglican Communion.

I could consult the numbers, but I believe that the liberal branches of these denominations are quite large, probably the majority in all these fellowship communites.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,413.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
In Catholic teaching justification and sanctification are inseparable. Justification is the beginning of salvation, and it's all a process not completed until God says it is, until we're finally fully bound to Him in heart and will where our sanctity would be complete.

Yes, Catholics and Orthodox don't see this division. Consider that as a Protestant, I taught that
===================
I was saved (justified) when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior (some would argue that this was at the Cross). Obviously my faith was a grace, given freely by God, and not tied to ANY actions.

I am being saved (sanctified) each day as the Holy Spirit conforms me more and more to Him

I will be saved (glorified) when Jesus accepts me at heaven's door
============
I guess folks question whether those who have been justified are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and whether we humans have the knowledge to know, judge and correct.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.


Well Evangelicalism is not so much a denomination as a description and belief in faith alone through grace! So if Hanegraff has rejected that, He may not be saved!

To add a maintenance of works or grace + works or not dying in sin or one of the other hundred reasons why people say you can lose your salvation is in essence preachjing another gospel than the one Paul preached.

I don't know Hanegraff so I can't speak to any "heterodox" doctrines you speak of. If he was very ecumenical in the worldly religious sense- that is a very large red flag.

I know our church receives all in our doors to come hear the gospel. but we do not receive all to join if they are unrepentant.

I would like you to define what you mean by an exclusionary religion. I do not wish to misunderstand your meaning by what I think.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,211
6,169
North Carolina
✟278,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It need not be atomized in such a manner, after all Hebrews 11 identifies Abraham as having faith(and works) as early as Genesis 12. Was he not justified by his faith there, but only years later when God declared him righteous in Genesis 15?
It is Paul who points out Abraham's justification in Ge 15:6, rather than Ge 12.
Righteousness/justification is imputed, not acquired.
You'll have to ask Paul if Abraham was justified by faith in Ge 12 rather than Ge 15:6. That he believed and trusted God is not in dispute.
However, Scripture locates his justification (righteousness imputed) in Ge 15:6, not before, nor after.

Is what I call "not going beyond what is written" (1Co 4:6) what you call "atomizing"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,413.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm going to adopt a Calvinist persona here, even though I'm not sure I'd accept double predestination.

In Reformed thought, God doesn't just stick you on the saved ledger and then go on to something else. He works through history and through tangible means. Choosing someone means making sure that the means are in place to save them. Election doesn't make faith and the works that follow from it irrelevant. Rather, when God chooses to save someone he actually does save them. He makes sure that they come to faith. Baptism is one means by which he works, which is what is meant by calling it a means of grace.

It is double predestination that became the line over which Wesley and I cannot cross.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is Paul who points out Abraham's justification in Ge 15:6, rather than Ge 12. You'll have to ask Paul if Abraham was justified by faith in Ge 12.
And James points out that Abraham's actions in Genesis 22 are the perfection of the belief in Genesis 15:6. You're the one who tried to present the timeline as problematic, so the timeline question is yours to answer. When was Abraham's faith justifying? If there is a point at which faith is not justifying, how much faith is necessary and how do we know when we have reached this justifying faith?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StevenBelievin

Trust In God
Site Supporter
Mar 26, 2017
337
203
54
Fort Worth, TX
✟144,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This is a discussion. Weigh in.
For the purposes of this OP, John MacArthur is an Evangelical leader, he is representative of Evangelicalism. Agree or disagree?

John MacArthur is attacking Eastern Orthodoxy. Are you okay with that? Is this a manifestation of a true, or false religion?

I'm not sure I would call John MacArthur a great example of evangelicalism as a whole. He is very judgmental and critical of anyone who believes anything differently than himself. He is very extreme in his exclusion of other beliefs that most would call miner disagreements. I know he is strongly against Spirt Filled or Pentecostal believers. I thing he believes that only cessationists will go to heaven. I would almost call him and his followers a cult. There's a lot of ex-members of his church who criticize him and his followers for being judgmental and critical of those of differing views.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,386
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,146.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right, perhaps you didn't understand my example. There certainly appears to be a conflict if we only consider a single dimension and we assume that the two must be mutually exclusive, in that they are legitimately speaking to the same issues. Yet it seems to me that if we look to the context to identify what they're speaking to they don't actually address the same thing, and are in fact complementary. Yet it's difficult to see their complementary nature because theology has been so infused with the debate between the Reformers and Catholics that it's become natural to read each in support of opposite camps. In 2 dimensions, it looks like there's going to be a crash but if we add a 3rd we see there is no danger.
You are looking at this from the perspective of theological/doctrinal debate from the time of Luther until now. I am looking at this as two texts written in the first century that are in obvious conflict. One author makes a career out of salvation by faith alone and the making a career out of salvation by works. You are "finding" harmony based on a historical debate to find a common ground. I am pointing to the raw text and original context. The writer's intent, as opposed to centuries of doctrinal massaging.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,413.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
And that choice can still be based on how we choose-if that's what He wants. In Catholic understanding it's all a matter of grace; the faith given us, the justification received, the works mentioned in Eph 2:10, works of love with which we work our our salvation. It's all a matter of God's life, of the Holy Spirit, operating in us. But we can still always resist that grace-that's where man's role comes into play. We aren't forced to remain in Him and to do His will, to endure and persevere to the end. And at some point of our resistance He will no longer remain in us.

As my Baptist mentor taught me so well, it is not OSAS (once saved, always saved). Rather, if we try really, really hard, we can turn our backs, actively reject God and turn far enough away so that we never return to his Grace.

Let's explore a bit. An adult accept the faith in the ways of the Church. He GIVES his life to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit (he gives Jesus the control of the wheel of his life), that they may act through him. What does it mean when such a person turns away in his human weakness? With his life given to the Holy Spirit, this person finds the strength and power to reject God and Christ? How much of a failure this would be for the Holy Spirit!!

You are certainly free to be believe and to judge that if someone commits a grave sin and doesn't repent that they will spend eternity in hell. As I have understood my entire life, this is a story for children, in order to scare them into obedience. Many pastors have shared the same view. They say that it is worth it if they can scare folks into heaven.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,211
6,169
North Carolina
✟278,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
It is Paul who points out Abraham's justification in Ge 15:6, rather than Ge 12.
Righteousness/justification is imputed, not acquired.
You'll have to ask Paul if Abraham was justified by faith in Ge 12 rather than Ge 15:6. That he believed and trusted God is not in dispute.
However, Scripture locates his justification (righteousness imputed) in Ge 15:6, not before, nor after.
And James points out that Abraham's actions in Genesis 22 are the perfection of the belief in Genesis 15:6. You're the one who tried to present the timeline as problematic, so the timeline question is yours to answer. When was Abraham's faith justifying? If there is a point at which faith is not justifying, how much faith is necessary and how do we know when we have reached this justifying faith?
It was justifying when Scripture says it was.

Righteousness is imputed, not acquired.

Scripture locates that imputation in Ge 15:6, neither before nor after.

The issue is righteousness. Abraham's imputed (credited) righteousness in Ge 15:6 was
a rendering of a full and complete "not guilty," a right-standing before God.
None of that was improved upon or altered in any way in Ge 22.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0