Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

2PhiloVoid · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Not sure it is really a thread unless you get off topic at some point. But yes... back to it.

If Evangelicalism isn't the problem, what is the problem?

In sum, I think the biggest problem [which is a set of multiple problems] is that the Bible itself, even as a collected anthology of sorts, doesn't provide a full-fledged, systematic lesson on how to interpret its contents.

With that being the case, the further we are removed in time, place, and culture from the original writers, the more we have to scramble to justify whatever Exegetical and Hermeneutical system we each have and by which we then claim to understand the text.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Not sure it is really a thread unless you get off topic at some point. But yes... back to it.

If Evangelicalism isn't the problem, what is the problem?

...and Gutenberg's press probably didn't help matters much, either. ^_^

mark46 · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Not sure it is really a thread unless you get off topic at some point. But yes... back to it.

If Evangelicalism isn't the problem, what is the problem?

Some think this question a bit flippant and perhaps unimportant. This is not the case.

There are hundreds of millions of non-Christians in the developed world. Do we want some of them to accept Jesus? Are we the Ark Of Life, or not? Do we have the Bread Of Life, or not? Do non-Christians come by our meetings and wonder what is the love coming out of that room? When they see Christians, do they wonder about the reason for their hope?

What the world sees is hundreds of denominations and church groups on the ark, fighting with one another, over the meaning of the faith, over politics, and over the most obvious actions. They simply walk away. In the US, that is OUR fault, the fault of loyal church members. Their sorrow, their inability to come the faith is our fault.

Perhaps, we simply must be quiet in public, not making any statements as church members. Maybe, we simply must ask what the need is, and help out our brothers and sisters. Perhaps we must love one another: the poor, the sick, the weak, the discriminated against, the prisoner. Perhaps, we need to simply let folks ask the Source of our love, of our hope.

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
In sum, I think the biggest problem [which is a set of multiple problems] is that the Bible itself, even as a collected anthology of sorts, doesn't provide a full-fledged, systematic lesson on how to interpret its contents.

With that being the case, the further we are removed in time, place, and culture from the original writers, the more we have to scramble to justify whatever Exegetical and Hermeneutical system we each have and by which we then claim to understand the text.

Compounding that problem is that in the absence of such guidance some have decided that their reading, regardless of whether there is a sound hermeneutic, is done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and as such is infallible so there's often little attention paid to hermeneutics.

Clare73 · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
I don't believe anyone claims that "faith" automatically justifies, so you're interacting with a strawman there...and appear to be contradicting Paul and Genesis 15:6 because the action in that sentence is God attributing Abraham's belief as righteousness, not simply a declaration in a void of Abraham's righteousness completely divorced from everything else. Yet you seem to be forwarding the idea that Abraham possessed a faith

genuine enough that the author of Hebrews felt it worth commending in Genesis 12, but that God had not yet made the attribution of faith and righteousness...purely for the sake of preserving a pre-determined position on a theologically loaded word in "imputation"

Good observation.

"Imputation" is not my word. . .the word is "credited" (imputed) in Ge 15:6 and also in the NT.

Imputation is not in a void divorced from anything else. . .it is through faith.

And what I am "preserving" (translate: receiving from Paul, who received it from Ge 15:6) is what Paul states in Ro 4:1-5, choosing not to go outside the boundary of what is revealed regarding imputation of righteousness to Abraham.

chevyontheriver · Jan 24, 2021

Dave L said:
But, don't the works you perform make you the savior, not Jesus? Jesus saves first so you can do good works.

You might want to listen to what Hannagraff said in the video.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
Compounding that problem is that in the absence of such guidance some have decided that their reading, regardless of whether there is a sound hermeneutic, is done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and as such is infallible so there's often little attention paid to hermeneutics.

Yep. That's a big one, too!

Jesse Dornfeld · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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 don't think he represents Evangelicals here. I'd much rather Piper, but that probably will not please the Michael Brown's.

I don't think pointing out falsehoods reflects poorly on doctrine itself, but character. I prefer making positive arguments rather than negative ones. IDK why MacArthur goes out of his way to spite people. I think he crosses the line.

mark46 · Jan 24, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
In sum, I think the biggest problem [which is a set of multiple problems] is that the Bible itself, even as a collected anthology of sorts, doesn't provide a full-fledged, systematic lesson on how to interpret its contents.

With that being the case, the further we are removed in time, place, and culture from the original writers, the more we have to scramble to justify whatever Exegetical and Hermeneutical system we each have and by which we then claim to understand the text.

Yes, many have a system where all that matters is the words of the Bible, and what they meant thousand of years ago. Many even forget the niceties of translation and what these words would have meant to the readers in biblical times. For many, their interpretation of the bible (or perhaps that of their pastor) is all that there is.

Perhaps we need to get down to the essentials. We need to know how to act. We need to have hope in order to function in this world, and a source of that hope.

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

Clare73 said:
Good observation.

"Imputation" not my word. . .the word is "credited" (imputed) in Ge 15:6 and also in the NT.

Imputation is not in a void divorced from anything else. . .it is through faith.

And what I am "preserving" (translate: receiving from Paul, who received it from Ge 15:6) is what Paul states in Ro 4:1-5, choosing not to go outside the boundary of what is revealed regarding imputation of righteousness to Abraham.

Credited and imputed are two different things, and logizomai(Paul's word) does not have the same implications that "imputation" has taken on. It means accounted or reckoned, not infused. It may not be "your" word, but it is a word your system(from Calvin and the Swiss reformers, not Paul) came up and infused with a loaded meaning apart from the neutral wording Paul put forth.

mark46 · Jan 24, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
In sum, I think the biggest problem [which is a set of multiple problems] is that the Bible itself, even as a collected anthology of sorts, doesn't provide a full-fledged, systematic lesson on how to interpret its contents.
.

The other is that life needs to be bound by a systematic set of lessons from a set of books, even if those books are inspired by God (well we can debate on how many and which translations).

The simplest illiterate worker among the billions in the world can understand Christianity. The 2 command, and the Sermon On the Mount aren't difficult to understand. Perhaps, as in all things, it helps to have a mentor to walk with in our journey.

Clare73 · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
Credited and imputed are two different things, and logizomai(Paul's word) does not have the same implications that "imputation" has taken on. It
means accounted or reckoned, not infused.

"Imputation" does not mean "infused."

"Imputation" in the Hebrew, chashab, means reckoning, or accounting.

Justification (declared "not guilty,' given right-standing before God) is not a matter of infusion.

It's a matter of reckoning or accounting, before the Divine Court.

It may not be "your" word, but it is a word your system(from Calvin and the Swiss reformers, not Paul) came up and infused with a loaded meaning apart from the neutral wording Paul put forth.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

mark46 said:
The open question is whether God has initiated a Church to last for all time, a Church to fellowship within, a Church that will protect the Truth (coming together from time to time), a Church that provides hierarchy for the churches throughout the world.

Succession is not the issue as much as continuity, continuity between the teaching of the apostles taught by Jesus, and especially how these teaching are to guide us in the modern era, both regard to issues that were known then and those that are new to the world.

For those who think that changes matter, consider the idea of sin and fellowship. Someone is accepted into the fellowship of the Church. He commits a serious sin. For the ancients, this meant that this person had rejected God. He was summarily kicked out of the Church. Who would suggest this today?

Earlier in this topic someone had provided an introductory style video about the Eastern Orthodox Church.

When I attended an Evangelical church this morning I thought about how different the styles of worship are between different segments of the body of Christ, the church.

The auditorium (which Protestants call the sanctuary) had mood lighting. The worship team was a music group and singers with drums and electric guitars. The lyrics were up on a large screen so we could sing along. Announcements were spoken and supported by on screen videos. As was the sermon.

There was no liturgy, no communion (Eucharist), there was a baby dedication, no baptism or Chrismation. A couple that had been pastoring there for 17 years was honored and prayed for as they seek God for their next step. We were dismissed with a benediction blessing. The sermon series had an emphasis on social ministry.

Was this what Jesus meant by church? Traditionalists might say, "No!"

2PhiloVoid · Jan 24, 2021

mark46 said:
The other is that life needs to be bound by a systematic set of lessons from a set of books, even if those books are inspired by God (well we can debate on how many and which translations).

The simplest illiterate worker among the billions in the world can understand Christianity. The 2 command, and the Sermon On the Mount aren't difficult to understand. Perhaps, as in all things, it helps to have a mentor to walk with in our journey.

That's true, too, Mark! And taking a cue from what you've just said, maybe this is where another problem creeps in, especially these days: sometimes, there are mentors who want to be 'more than' mentors and who become embroiled in contemporary politics and polity (i.e. whatever politics and polity just happen to be at play at the time), bringing with their 'mentoring' additional baggage that unleashes undue pressures upon the spiritual lives of many.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
In sum, I think the biggest problem [which is a set of multiple problems] is that the Bible itself, even as a collected anthology of sorts, doesn't provide a full-fledged, systematic lesson on how to interpret its contents.

With that being the case, the further we are removed in time, place, and culture from the original writers, the more we have to scramble to justify whatever Exegetical and Hermeneutical system we each have and by which we then claim to understand the text.

I question whether God really intended for us to be dissecting a book the way we are. Or whether he even wanted us to have the book in the first place. Who told the RCC to canonize (collect and vote on) the Bible?

On occasion I ask these Bible-thumpers what would become of their relationship with God if they put their library out on the curb on trash day. Then what? Would they ever hear from God again? Or might they hear from him for the first time?

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

Clare73 said:
"Imputation" does not mean "infused."

In the Hebrew, chashab, it means reckoning, or accounting.

Justification (declared "not guilty,' given right-standing before God) is not a matter of infusion.

It's a matter of reckoning or accounting, before the Divine Court.

The way it's used in systematic theologies "infused" is part of the meaning, though not explicit. Imputation, as a theological term, implies more than credit, reckoning, or accounting because it renders it a fictitious account rather than a recognition of a genuine truth. If someone pays me $2 and I credit them with $2, the transaction is clear and it is an accounting or a reckoning of a genuine thing. But if I impute someone with a credit of $2 there is the implication that I have added the value without there being a genuine exchange. There is not only no such implication with the Greek word Paul uses that is translated as "imputed" by KJV and others, it is largely excluded. When God credited Abraham with righteousness for believing God, it is because it is righteous to believe God not some sort of fictitious exchange.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I question whether God really intended for us to be dissecting a book the way we are. Or whether he even wanted us to have the book in the first place. Who told the RCC to canonize (collect and vote on) the Bible?

On occasion I ask these Bible-thumpers what would become of their relationship with God if they put their library out on the curb on trash day. Then what? Would they ever hear from God again? Or might they hear from him for the first time?

Those are some pertinent questions, for sure! But I'd rather not put my library out to the curb on trash day, not only because it's extensive and I rather like it.........but the city I live in charges extra for anything that doesn't actually fit into one trash can. And besides, my back would ache for days if I did that! Sheesh! ^_^

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I question whether God really intended for us to be dissecting a book the way we are. Or whether he even wanted us to have the book in the first place. Who told the RCC to canonize (collect and vote on) the Bible?

On occasion I ask these Bible-thumpers what would become of their relationship with God if they put their library out on the curb on trash day. Then what? Would they ever hear from God again? Or might they hear from him for the first time?

Your question doesn't really speak to the history of canonization. The votes and such were formal decrees of an organic process, canonization was not done by committees and scholars but by natural use and exclusion in church services.

As for your second question, I'd imagine a religion that claims that God has made special revelation in history through prophets and His incarnation would be a bit amiss without an accurate record of those revelations. God's not confined in the Bible, our knowledge about Him is certainly limited without it though. Why would ignorance and speculation be preferable?

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

mark46 said:
Some think this question a bit flippant and perhaps unimportant. This is not the case.

There are hundreds of millions of non-Christians in the developed world. Do we want some of them to accept Jesus? Are we the Ark Of Life, or not? Do we have the Bread Of Life, or not? Do non-Christians come by our meetings and wonder what is the love coming out of that room? When they see Christians, do they wonder about the reason for their hope?

What the world sees is hundreds of denominations and church groups on the ark, fighting with one another, over the meaning of the faith, over politics, and over the most obvious actions. They simply walk away. In the US, that is OUR fault, the fault of loyal church members. Their sorrow, their inability to come the faith is our fault.

Perhaps, we simply must be quiet in public, not making any statements as church members. Maybe, we simply must ask what the need is, and help out our brothers and sisters. Perhaps we must love one another: the poor, the sick, the weak, the discriminated against, the prisoner. Perhaps, we need to simply let folks ask the Source of our love, of our hope.

I agree. Those are some great questions.

Being raised as an Evangelical, I had to learn some hard lessons. I was making projects out of people. It was my job to convince them that I was right and they were wrong. Biblical apologetics. I had answers to all of their objections. Eventually I figured out that I am not Billy Graham. - lol

I know now that I need to love and respect people no matter who they are or what the stand for. I don't hide my faith. Folks at work know that I am a Christian. But I don't talk about it unless it fits the conversation. If I see that God is working on someone I will do my part. I have been approached by a few people who wanted what I have.

And I have been involved with church ministries over the years. At this point I know where God has placed me and what he wants me to do. And I make myself available for whatever he wants me to do. And on occasion he asks me to do strange things. Like talk to complete strangers. God says, "Talk to that woman." I ask, "What should I say?" (no answer) I say, "Okay, here we go." - lol --- Then I end up praying with them. Usually for healing. I see sick people.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Those are some pertinent questions, for sure! But I'd rather not put my library out to the curb on trash day, not only because it's extensive and I rather like it.........but the city I live in charges extra for anything that doesn't actually fit into one trash can. And besides, my back would ache for days if I did that! Sheesh!

I don't actually want people to put their library in the trash. But I do want them to think about how much emphasis they put on books and how little emphasis they put on a one-on-one relationship with God. Are they listening to his voice? Do they walk with him on a daily basis? Or is it just something they read and argue about?

Saint Steven said: ↑
I question whether God really intended for us to be dissecting a book the way we are. Or whether he even wanted us to have the book in the first place. Who told the RCC to canonize (collect and vote on) the Bible?

On occasion I ask these Bible-thumpers what would become of their relationship with God if they put their library out on the curb on trash day. Then what? Would they ever hear from God again? Or might they hear from him for the first time?

Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Slave to Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

You can call me Steve

Other scholars got to me before you did!

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Similar threads