Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
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?

We are so dependent on our books, we wouldn't recognize God if he walked past us on the street.

chevyontheriver · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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!"

That was what Thomas Howard experienced, maybe not exactly the mood lighting, but that whole general thing. And it left him with a bit on ennui. Then he discovered liturgy, first among Anglicans and then among the Orthodox and Catholics. He eventually did become Catholic but while he was still solidly evangelical he did write a book called 'Evangelical Is Not Enough'. It was a basic call for evangelicals to adopt liturgical worship. I think he was absolutely right. Of course I also think he was right to become Catholic later on. But he was right about liturgy because we need that organization, that movement, that connection to our Hebrew roots.

I would suggest you try out a liturgical service. If there is an Orthodox liturgy in English that might be good. Orthodox in another language might be good or bewildering depending. A Catholic liturgy is a bit more austere but even there we have some fuller expressions, the Latin mass and the Ordinariate mass and the various eastren rites. With the Latin mass there will probably be guides in English. With the Ordinariate mass it's essentially Cranmerian English while actually Catholic. Anyhow, one of the many above. All of them have deep roots going back to the worship of the Temple, honed over hundreds and hundreds of years. It's not what the worship leader cooked up last week.

And do find Thomas Howard's book. If you stay evangelical you might want to try to get it implemented. If you become liturgical yourself, this may launch you.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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?

Oof!!! That's an awesome comment, Steven!

Sketcher · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I agree.
As @Silly Uncle Wayne said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

However, when I watched this video I saw something that pointed to a prevailing problem in Evangelicalism. (which resides in other places as well) The "us versus them" position. The attitude that creates enemies between churches across the street from each other.

John MacArthur is an Evangelical leader. He was calling the church to curse Eastern Orthodoxy. A statement like that should NEVER come from the pulpit. Especially when it is so misinformed. Hank's calm explanation was a breath of fresh air after the hateful poison that MacArthur was spewing.

I agree that it shouldn't have been made. If he was going to preach that the church curse false gospels, there's a place for that - but he should have used a better example. He's taken other positions I disagree with as well, from a Biblical standpoint.

Unfortunately, separating from him and his idea perpetuates "us vs them" since I make have to make him one of "them" if I'm going to distance myself. To a point, it's unavoidable. Within the walls of Christianity, I would like things to be more relaxed, but at the same time there are others in the "them" category - one easy and contemporary example is the pushers of the so-called prosperity gospel - that I have to separate myself from.

chevyontheriver · 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?

That would be a question to ask St. Peter when he commissioned the Gospel of Mark. Or to ask St. Paul when he started righting his letters.

Of course the impetus for a canon came when Marcion decided to rip out most of the OT and some of the NT as well. And then there were a bunch of Gnostic works that really were beyond the pale, pushing for the recognition of the accurate works of the apostles and their immediate disciples.

Without the canon there would be chaos. But with the canon we have chaos too. So go figure.

But that's why creeds and tradition and live bishops altogether are needed to complement the Bible. And if we never had a Bible they would still be needed and probably sufficient for a prayerful people who knew how to wait upon the Lord.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
That was what Thomas Howard experienced, maybe not exactly the mood lighting, but that whole general thing. And it left him with a bit on ennui. Then he discovered liturgy, first among Anglicans and then among the Orthodox and Catholics. He eventually did become Catholic but while he was still solidly evangelical he did write a book called 'Evangelical Is Not Enough'. It was a basic call for evangelicals to adopt liturgical worship. I think he was absolutely right. Of course I also think he was right to become Catholic later on. But he was right about liturgy because we need that organization, that movement, that connection to our Hebrew roots.

I would suggest you try out a liturgical service. If there is an Orthodox liturgy in English that might be good. Orthodox in another language might be good or bewildering depending. A Catholic liturgy is a bit more austere but even there we have two fuller expressions, the Latin mass and the Ordinariate mass. With the Latin mass there will probably be guides in English. With the Ordinariate mass it's essentially Cranmerian English while actually Catholic. Anyhow, one of the above. All of them have deep roots going back to the worship of the Temple, honed over hundreds and hundreds of years. It's not what the worship leader cooked up last week.

And do find Thomas Howard's book. If you stay evangelical you might want to try to get it implemented. If you become liturgical yourself, this may launch you.

Thanks, I appreciate the input.
I have seen a number of Evangelicals moving toward orthodoxy. Prior to that I saw Catholics leaving the Church. I have seen Charismatics go into Calvinism.

As an Evangelical, I ended up in the Assemblies of God (Pentecostalism) for over 30 years. So, lots of movement out there. I still play electric guitar on an AG worship team. Which is a very enjoyable worship experience for me personally. And many have thanked me for my ministry in music.

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
We are so dependent on our books, we wouldn't recognize God if he walked past us on the street.

I'm not sure I agree. While we can glean some knowledge of God through nature it is only through His chosen method of revelation that we can truly come to know Him. Certainly, the book is useless without a real relationship but without the book God remains largely unknown. We would not know what it means to say "God is just" except we see God's justice through Biblical revelation, nor would we know what it means to say "God is love" unless we had examples of that love being expressed. Through the Bible we smash idols that would otherwise remain in tact, there is no genuine relationship with God apart from it.

hedrick · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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!"

Calvin actually wanted weekly communion. Apparently congregations at the time simply didn't want it. The liturgical reform movement tried to accomplish it in the 60s and 70s, but only managed to change from once a quarter to once a month.

I think in some sense you should view the sermon as sacramental for traditional Protestantism. This is where the Word meets us. When well done, there is a liturgy around it. The congregation prepares for the Word by celebrating God's presence and confession. Scripture is read, and then the sermon explains it and applies to our lives. There is then thanksgiving and dedication. The Reformers saw the act of preaching as making the Word truly present in a way that private reading did not.

fhansen · Jan 24, 2021

mark46 said:
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!!

Now wait a minute here!

You just said that a person freely GIVES his life to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit. What's freely given can certainly be taken back. It's not God's will that any sin-or that evil should've entered His world to begin with so its not a matter of how strong He is or isn't (He could squash us all, including satan, like bugs) but a matter of what He sovereignly wills to do. He certainly didn't want Adam to eat of the fruit when He expressly forbade him from doing so, God's foreknowledge of the Fall notwithstanding.

But sin and evil did enter the scene and it's not as if we become perfectly pure as snow inside once we give our lives to God now. Human freedom is sort of the key along with grace -and that freedom continuous to play its role in the drama-and by our own actions we show where our hearts and loyalty really lie. The GIVING is a continuous giving, not just some one-time gift. We must endure; we must persevere, and no one can predict their own perseverance.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
Without the canon there would be chaos. But with the canon we have chaos too. So go figure.

There you go. - lol

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?

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
That would be a question to ask St. Peter when he commissioned the Gospel of Mark. Or to ask St. Paul when he started righting his letters.

To be fair, neither of those authors knew that their works would be canonized later. (not to mention dissected and put under a microscope)

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?

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
But that's why creeds and tradition and live bishops altogether are needed to complement the Bible. And if we never had a Bible they would still be needed and probably sufficient for a prayerful people who knew how to wait upon the Lord.

Yes, those things are a great benefit. Though issues arise when there is a codified "Tradition" that in places runs counter to what's written in the Bible and that makes ad-hoc rationalizations of how when things change they have actually always been the new way. Realistically all of these human enterprises (including Biblical translation and textual criticism) are only useful in so far as the Spirit is guiding. Far too often issues come from too rigid of an insistence that human things are acts/thoughts of God.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
I'm not sure I agree. While we can glean some knowledge of God through nature it is only through His chosen method of revelation that we can truly come to know Him. Certainly, the book is useless without a real relationship but without the book God remains largely unknown. We would not know what it means to say "God is just" except we see God's justice through Biblical revelation, nor would we know what it means to say "God is love" unless we had examples of that love being expressed. Through the Bible we smash idols that would otherwise remain in tact, there is no genuine relationship with God apart from it.

There is no genuine relationship with God apart from the Bible?
How many of those listed in Hebrews chapter eleven (the Faith chapter) had Bibles? (zero)

Saint Steven said: ↑
We are so dependent on our books, we wouldn't recognize God if he walked past us on the street.

mlepfitjw · Jan 24, 2021

Why do people in Christianity that get so fixated with doctrines, and the men that created them hold them up higher than they hold on to the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ who can heal and renew the mind, and heal the heart?

It has to come from the world!

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
There is no genuine relationship with God apart from the Bible?
How many of those listed in Hebrews chapter eleven (the Faith chapter) had Bibles? (zero)

Saint Steven said: ↑
We are so dependent on our books, we wouldn't recognize God if he walked past us on the street.

I was speaking in the current, of course prior to the Bible people had relationships with God. Apart from God's self-revelation, which is largely restricted to the Bible at present, there is no genuine relationship with God. We are decidedly under-dependent on it, purely because more often than not it's not recognized as the authentic Word of God(and thus unimpeachable).

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

Agallagher said:
Why do people in Christianity that get so fixated with doctrines, and the men that created them hold them up higher than they hold on to the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ who can heal and renew the mind, and heal the heart?

It has to come from the world!

In many cases, religion is preferred over a relationship.

chevyontheriver · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Thanks, I appreciate the input.
I have seen a number of Evangelicals moving toward orthodoxy. Prior to that I saw Catholics leaving the Church. I have seen Charismatics go into Calvinism.

As an Evangelical, I ended up in the Assemblies of God (Pentecostalism) for over 30 years. So, lots of movement out there. I still play electric guitar on an AG worship team. Which is a very enjoyable worship experience for me personally. And many have thanked me for my ministry in music.

I've seen lots of Catholics leave and lots of Protestants become Catholic. I think we lose more than we gain, but we lose more low information young folks and gain more informed and deliberate Christians. Almost all we gain have a deep appreciation of their earlier experiences as Protestants. I rarely see them repudiating their past, but building upon it.

Clare73 · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
The way it's used in systematic theologies. . .

I'm talking Scripture, not the "way it's used. . .wherever."
Scripture is our authority, nothing else.

"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

Sez who?

There is nothing "fictitious" about being declared "not guilty" by God, about being given right-standing before him, in right relationship to him. . .nothing fictitious at all. . .at least not where I live!

rather than a recognition of a genuine truth.

There couldn't be a more "genuine truth" than having your sin remitted!

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.

Pretty much what the cross does for those who believe.

Oh, there's been an exchange all right!
Christ's shed blood imputed to my credit, but I didn't add the value to that exchange. I had absolutely none--zilch, zero, nada, nill--to add. . .flat broke, down and out, hopelessly lost, at the mercy of the Court. . .you get the picture.

So what's the exchange when my older brother pays the fine that keeps me out of jail and the Court declares "fine paid, prisoner released"? The Court "imputed" me with a credit without me actually paying the fine in exchange for my freedom.

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.

Paul's word means reckoned, accounted.

"Imputation" in the other Biblical language, Hebrew, means reckoned, accounted.
It's a correct use of the word in regard to justification; i.e., righteousness ("not guilty," right-standing, right relationship). . .which is not the righteousness of sanctification; i.e., growth in personal rightness of character.

When God credited Abraham with righteousness for believing God, it is because it is righteous to believe God not some sort of fictitious exchange.

One righteous act doth not a righteous man make.

Not when Paul reveals that apart from imputation thereof (Ro 5:18-19), no one is righteous, not even one (Ro 3:10), that all have fallen short of the glory of God. . .and are justified freely through faith (and not because they are righteous) in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the remittance of their sin and guilt (Ro 3:23-26)--and that includes Abraham before Ge 15:6, when righteousness was credited (imputed) to him through faith.

Saint Steven · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
I was speaking in the current, of course prior to the Bible people had relationships with God. Apart from God's self-revelation, which is largely restricted to the Bible at present, there is no genuine relationship with God. We are decidedly under-dependent on it, purely because more often than not it's not recognized as the authentic Word of God(and thus unimpeachable).

People coming to God typically know little to nothing about the Bible. They have to take classes and apply themselves to study to gain that knowledge. The relationship begins without the Bible. The Bible comes later.

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

Clare73 said:
I'm talking Scripture, not the "way it's used. . .wherever."
Scripture is our authority, nothing else.Sez who?

There is nothing "fictitious" about being declared "not guilty" by God, about being given right-standing before him, in right relationship to him. . .nothing fictitious at all. . .at least not where I live!

There couldn't be a more "genuine truth" than having your sin remitted!
Pretty much what the cross does for those who believe.

Oh, there's been an exchange all right!
Christ's shed blood imputed to my credit, but I didn't add the value to that exchange. I had absolutely none--zilch, zero, nada, nill--to add. . .flat broke, down and out, hopelessly lost, at the mercy of the Court. . .you get the picture.

So what's the exchange when my older brother pays the fine that keeps me out of jail and the Court declares "fine paid, prisoner released"? The Court "imputed" me with a credit without me actually paying the fine in exchange for my freedom.

Paul's word means reckoned, accounted.

"Imputation" in the other Biblical language, Hebrew, means reckoned, accounted.
It's a correct use of the word in regard to justification; i.e., righteousness ("not guilty," right-standing, right relationship). . .which is not the righteousness of sanctification; i.e., growth in personal rightness of character.

One righteous act doth not a righteous man make.

Not when Paul reveals that apart from imputation thereof (Ro 5:18-19), no one is righteous, not even one (Ro 3:10), that all have fallen short of the glory of God. . .and are justified freely through faith (and not because they are righteous) in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the remittance of their sin and guilt (Ro 3:23-26)--and that includes Abraham before Ge 15:6, when righteousness was credited (imputed) to him through faith.

Imputation has a specific theological meaning that goes beyond simply "reckoned, accounted." If you simply mean "reckoned, accounted" without the added element of "not actual," I have no issues with the word imputation. The full phrase is "it was credited to him as righteousness" meaning Abraham's belief was counted as righteousness, not Christ's performance.

And your system dependence shows in your proof texting Romans 3:10, especially since the Bible explicitly calls several people righteous in both the old and new testament and even says that the righteousness of Daniel and Job could deliver themselves through their righteousness...so what's true the proof text for total depravity brain child of Augustine...or Ezekiel, the prophet of God?

Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Born Imperishable

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Oldbie

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

May you be blessed!

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Similar threads