Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

chevyontheriver · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
As for becoming a member of a fellowship and entering into sacramental life, I'm inclined to agree though I have a feeling there's quite a gap between our theologies of what "sacramental life" entails. For instance, I am absolutely against the notion that Christ is sacrificed at every mass.

There is a gap in theologies alright, but largely a gap between your understanding of Catholic theology on the one hand and actual Catholic theology on the other hand. But I suspect such things are not well taught where you are being educated. You might have to augment your education a bit to get there. Just saying, as friendly as I can, and not trying to yank your chain

mark46 · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
.For instance, I am absolutely against the notion that Christ is sacrificed at every mass.

Jesus died once. In the mass, we relive the sacrifice. We join with all the saints over the ages and are joined through time to that one sacrifice as we are part of the mass.

But when I mention the sacramental life, I am talking about the traditional Church and the ideas that there is a real Church (in addition to the church). And yes, Jesus is really and truly present at the Table Of Plenty. As part of a traditional Church, there are two critical sacraments: eucharist and baptism. As the Anglicans teach, there are several lesser sacraments. The OO, EO, and RCC do not distinguish between primary and secondary sacraments.

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
There is a gap in theologies alright, but largely a gap between your understanding of Catholic theology on the one hand and actual Catholic theology on the other hand. But I suspect such things are not well taught where you are being educated. You might have to augment your education a bit to get there. Just saying, as friendly as I can, and not trying to yank your chain

Fair enough. I've had people try to explain to me the sacrifice of the mass and transubstantiation to me in the past and never quite heard a version I found in agreement with Scripture, but perhaps it is a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on my part as you suggest. Honestly the ins-and-outs of transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs symbolic have all seemed to be overly rigid philosophic understandings, though. I certainly don't want to misrepresent Catholicism, especially not in areas I don't find agreement.

mark46 · Jan 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
.
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?

I would find the discipline of ridding myself of my library very difficult. Most difficult to part with would be the teachings of the desert mothers and fathers. Brother Lawrence can't go! The teachings of the Middle Ages saints and teachers would be hard to lose. And also, the teachings of many of the Buddhists, especially as they write of their relationships with Christianity.

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

mark46 said:
Jesus died once. In the mass, we relive the sacrifice. We join with all the saints over the ages and are joined through time to that one sacrifice as we are part of the mass.

But when I mention the sacramental life, I am talking about the traditional Church and the ideas that there is a real Church (in addition to the church). And yes, Jesus is really and truly present at the Table Of Plenty. As part of a traditional Church, there are two critical sacraments: eucharist and baptism. As the Anglicans teach, there are several lesser sacraments. The OO, EO, and RCC do not distinguish between primary and secondary sacraments.

Perhaps Trent is just confusing in its wording, because while it distinguishes between the one bloody sacrifice it does state that Christ is offered as an unbloodied sacrifice at every mass.

As for the existence of a real Church, I see none that don't require a suspension of disbelief and denial of history to accept as such. Though that is not to say that there is not an unbroken line of believers, simply that no institution seems to truly be able to claim the title of "church that Christ founded." Baptizing and taking communion/Eucharist/table/love feast/whatever you want to call it is certainly something I agree is necessary though what's happening there and the reasons for it I imagine there is divergence.

mark46 · Jan 24, 2021

Fervent said:
Fair enough. I've had people try to explain to me the sacrifice of the mass and transubstantiation to me in the past and never quite heard a version I found in agreement with Scripture, but perhaps it is a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on my part as you suggest. Honestly the ins-and-outs of transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs symbolic have all seemed to be overly rigid philosophic understandings, though. I certainly don't want to misrepresent Catholicism, especially not in areas I don't find agreement.

Personally, I agree that all the nuances of explaining the eucharist are not very helpful. However, there is a central question. Is Jesus really present, truly present, in the bread and the wine? I am NOT discussing timing, mechanism or when the presence of the Spirit or body of God. I am simply pointed out that it means a great deal whether Jesus actually participates. God is there in the Word. God is there in our prayers and fellowship. But does Jesus come to the Table?

Fervent · Jan 24, 2021

mark46 said:
Personally, I agree that all the nuances of explaining the eucharist are not very helpful. However, there is a central question. Is Jesus really present, truly present, in bread and wine? I am NOT discussing timing, mechanism or when the presence of the Spirit or body of God. I am simply pointed out that it means a great deal whether Jesus actually participates. God is there in the Word. God is there in our prayers and fellowship. But does Jesus come to the Table?

Yeah, that seems a pretty important question and I would say that He absolutely is present in a manner different from the sense in which He is present everywhere. Neither baptism or Eucharist are a mere symbolic representation, but most statements of nuance to me seem to be aiming at more precision than we are given ground to support.

Dave L · Jan 25, 2021

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

I think he made a spiritually fatal mistake.

Dave L · Jan 25, 2021

mark46 said:
Of course, but who should we accept as the interpreter of the Creeds? and the councils who interpreted those creeds in the times of the Early Church?

You can only take them one way. They are like a legal document.

Saint Steven · Jan 25, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
Paul was knocked off his horse by God, trained in the faith by the best, but confirmed in his calling by the laying on of hands by the apostles. That's Acts 13. I consider that essential, the part where "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

Thanks for your informative post, but...
That quote above is actually from Acts chapter 15, the Jerusalem Council. And nothing to do with Paul's confirmation. Perhaps you were referring to Acts chapter nine. However, I see no commissioning by the Apostles there. Ananias laid hands on him for healing and filling with the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that Paul operated independently of the other "super apostles". (2 Corinthians 11:5; 2 Corinthians 12:11) I don't see a solid link of succession. And don't you trace succession through Peter, not Paul? Or, all the Apostles, including Paul?

Acts 9:17-22
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21 All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22 Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

Saint Steven · Jan 25, 2021

chevyontheriver said:
... It was God's idea, of course, but even God can raise up leaders from dry bones if required. It does come down to authority. One can think he is called to be an apostle, one can be smarter than an apostle, one can know their Bible and their theology perfectly, but until the Church recognizes the calling, it's only a supposed calling. One can be sure of being called by God, but they also need the laying on of hands to be part of the apostolic leadership. ...

Thanks again for your detailed and thoughtful posts. I appreciate it.
How do you conclude that Apostolic Succession was God's idea?

Frankly, this bothers me a bit, because it seems to put so much faith in humankind. And we can see historically in some cases where things went in the wrong direction. There was a definite breaking away from this in the Protestant Reformation. So, it seems that Luther didn't see the value in it. Though perhaps he was hoping to make changes within the Church, but was forced out instead. Not sure.

Saint Steven · Jan 25, 2021

fhansen said:
And where, ultimately, do we hear about the relationship except thru the church, that church that assembled the canon of Scripture, and the creeds, etc?

So, you have joined the "limiting God" club as well? Okay. Why?

Saint Steven said: ↑
In many cases, religion is preferred over a relationship.

Saint Steven · Jan 25, 2021

mark46 said:
I would find the discipline of ridding myself of my library very difficult. Most difficult to part with would be the teachings of the desert mothers and fathers. Brother Lawrence can't go! The teachings of the Middle Ages saints and teachers would be hard to lose. And also, the teachings of many of the Buddhists, especially as they write of their relationships with Christianity.

Of course. And I'm not asking anyone to actually do that. (put their library out on the curb on trash day) Only asking, what would become of their relationship with God? Would it survive library removal?

Imagine if it was involuntary. What if you were imprisoned for your faith? There you were behind bars with nothing but a hard wooden bed and a toilet. (or worse) Would your spiritual life be over? Some who have experienced that come out stronger spiritually than they went in. Why?

Saint Steven said: ↑
.
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 25, 2021

Dave L said:
I think he made a spiritually fatal mistake.

So, you agreed with MacArthur? Wow. It was a vicious and chilling attack. Completely uncalled for. Do you seriously think that Eastern Orthodoxy should be cursed? Hank's response shows that MacArthur's position was misinformed.

Saint Steven · Jan 25, 2021

Dave L said:
You can only take them one way. They are like a legal document.

Weren't the later creeds an attempt to expand/explain the obvious questions that the previous creeds left? Indicating more than one way to understand them?

Inkfingers · Jan 25, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
Or who attends without the correct apparel, and is cast into the darkness outside, where there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Calling Christianity a religion is not attending without correct apparel though, is it.

Shrewd Manager · Jan 25, 2021

Inkfingers said:
Calling Christianity a religion is not attending without correct apparel though, is it.

To the extent that selling all one owns and buying a field for the treasure buried there makes one a landowner, I suppose. Or sweeping a house to find that lost diamond ring makes one a cleaner. Incidental at best lol.

Saint Steven · Jan 25, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
To the extent that selling all one owns and buying a field for the treasure buried there makes one a landowner, I suppose. Or sweeping a house to find that lost diamond ring makes one a cleaner. Incidental at best lol.

Right. Those at the banquet thought they belonged, but were mistaken about what it was, thinking their religion gave them access and a right to stay. Not so much.

GDL · Jan 25, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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?

I'm personally not put off by "arms crossed" nor attracted to "open arms." Nor have I ever wanted to be included under titles like "Evangelical."

At my coming to Faith and turning myself over to Him, I asked for one thing in return: I just wanted to know the Truth.

With that said, I have come through the "Faith Alone" soteriology to more of the position Hanegraff speaks. I think James needs to be understood before Paul and I see where Paul may in fact be responding to James strictly in regards to initial justification.

Thanks for the video. It was a good presentation of the issue. It could have been a bit better IMO if Hanegraff would have used less time reading Scripture from memory and simply explaining in a bit more detail it's meaning and elaborating on "Faith working through Love." But the message is there and the issue is on the table.

Thanks again. I'll be passing it on to some others.

Clare73 · Jan 25, 2021

ViaCrucis said:
Except that John MacArthur teaches "works-based salvation". The whole "Lordship salvation" thing is just another variation of religious performance to earn God's favor.

Usually when I see Protestant polemicists attack "works-based salvation" they aren't actually doing that, instead they are attacking the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith, and the way they do that is usually to deny the Means of Grace (Word and Sacrament), deny the gift of faith, and to instead preach that salvation is about "making a decision to follow Jesus", i.e. a human work.

So at least from a Lutheran vantage point, folks like MacArthur aren't championing the gospel, but working against it.

-CryptoLutheran

Could you briefly explain how "Lordship salvation" is a "works-based salvation"?

Thanks.

Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Somebody's heretic

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Similar threads