Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
No, if you read them, you will find the ECs in all mainstream Christendom but they added denominational dogma to them. The Symbol of Chalcedon clarifies some of the earlier Christology creeds but does not contradict them. You should study them sometime. They are deeper than anything you'll hear today.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I quite agree that prayer and living righteously are not merely adjuncts to Bible study. I would forward that simply studying the Bible is to neglect its full voice, though. Perhaps I am imposing a limit on my relationship with God that need not be there, yet it appears to me that this limit God has set for me is a common one if not universal where Bibles are available. I have heard God speak in many ways, but every time He has it has been to confirm the trustworthiness of the Bible.
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 "acramental life" entails. For instance,
I am absolutely against the notion that Christ is sacrificed at every mass.
As is the NT. . .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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?
To some extent. Chalcedon could easily be read as consistent with Theodore's Christology. Indeed at the time it was probably intended to be. But later Church politics demanded a rejection of Theodore. So it happened in the next council. On a less sinister note, Chalcedon didn't settle the monothelite question. I don't know whether this is the same kind of thing or not. Theodore was already around by the time of Chalecdon. But the monothelite controversy occurred later.

Because Chalcedon didn't specify a detailed Christology, but only limits, later questions were bound to come up. The same thing is true of Nicea, though I don't recall of later council decisions relating to that. (I could well be forgetting something.) My reading would be that the later decisions really only dealt with specific questions, and still didn't try to specific what I'd consider a full Christology. I actually think the approach of specifying limits and allowing further discussions to continue was wise. Maybe the only wise thing they did. I'm not opposed to either the Nicean Creed or Chalcedon, but I think the whole approach towards heresy and orthodoxy has problems, and set us up for a lot of issues today.

Of course Protestants don't typically accept councils beyond Chalcedon.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To some extent. Chalcedon could easily be read as consistent with Theodore's Christology. Indeed at the time it was probably intended to be. But later Church politics demanded a rejection of Theodore. So it happened in the next council. On a less sinister note, Chalcedon didn't settle the monothelite question. I don't know whether this is the same kind of thing or not. Theodore was already around by the time of Chalecdon. But the monothelite controversy occurred later.

Because Chalcedon didn't specify a detailed Christology, but only limits, later questions were bound to come up. The same thing is true of Nicea, though I don't recall of later council decisions relating to that. (I could well be forgetting something.) My reading would be that the later decisions really only dealt with specific questions, and still didn't try to specific what I'd consider a full Christology. I actually think the approach of specifying limits and allowing further discussions to continue was wise. Maybe the only wise thing they did. I'm not opposed to either the Nicean Creed or Chalcedon, but I think the whole approach towards heresy and orthodoxy has problems, and set us up for a lot of issues today.

Of course Protestants don't typically accept councils beyond Chalcedon.
I don't think you will find a more true definition of Christ than in the Symbol of Chalcedon. Pick at it as you may, it's the best we have.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus sacrificed once for us all. We "enter in" to that one sacrifice at the mass.
Rather. he died only for the elect and based on that God gives us a new saved personality that believes and obeys scripture by nature.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
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.
In the OT, the Israelite participated, in fellowship with the priest who offered it, in a sacrificial meal of the sacrifice itself, the Israelite partaking of his portion at home while the priest partook of his portion in the courtyard up at the Temple, wherein the Israelite participated in the benefits of the sacrifice--reconciliation with God and fellowship with the priest who offered it.

The Lord's Supper is the:

1) NT sacrificial meal of the sacrifice itself (slain body and blood of Christ), wherein we participate in (1Co 10:16, 18) the benefits of that sacrifice: fellowship with God in Christ, the Priest who offered it;

2) proclamation to the world of the Lord's death until he comes (1Co 11:26); and

3) proclamation of our own faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the OT, the Israelite participated, in fellowship with the priest who offered it, in a sacrificial meal of the sacrifice itself, the Israelite partaking of his portion at home while the priest partook of his portion in the courtyard up at the Temple, wherein the Israelite participated in the benefits of the sacrifice--reconciliation with God and fellowship with the priest who offered it.

The Lord's Supper is the NT sacrificial meal, wherein we participate (1Co 10:16, 18) in the benefits of Christs' sacrifice:
pardon of sin,
peace and acceptance with God,
adoption as sons.
access to the throne of grace,
fellowship with God in Christ, the Priest who offered it.
= salvation by works.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
= salvation by works.
But the Lord's Supper does not save, it is for the saved. . .a participation in the benefits of fellowship with God in Christ, the priest who offered it.

The OT sacrificial meal did not atone, it was for the forgiven. . .a participation in the sacrificial benefits through a fellowship meal with the priest who offered it.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Dave L
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

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
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.
I was referring to Acts 13: 1-4
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

Paul didn't just set out on his own. He set out after the Holy Spirit called and after the Church laid hands on him. Only then. He was a bit player before that. After that he was the apostolic rock star.

Succession comes through the apostles as a group, not just through Peter. So even when a bishop is consecrated today it is by a group of other bishops, not every bishop, not just one bishop, not just the pope. The pope may appoint a new bishop, true in most but not all places, but other bishops consecrate him.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

So, have we all figured out whether or not "Evangelicalism" is a false religion yet?

I see 23 pages of discussion, and I'm still wondering... :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, have we all figured out whether or not "Evangelicalism" is a false religion yet?

I see 23 pages of discussion, and I'm still wondering... :rolleyes:
Of course, it's not.

Universalism is the false religion.

The pot wants to call the kettle black.
.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course, it's not.

Universalism is the false religion.

The pot wants to call the kettle black.
.

I don't know that I'd call it a religion all by its conceptual lonesome, analytically speaking ... :cool:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
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

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In my opinion as we grow in God/Christ we must cast off literalistic knowledge and embrace spiritual wisdom. To me that means placing much less importance on mans opinions, creeds and doctrines and leaning toward the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is what Hank seems to be doing and John is missing.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So, you have joined the "limiting God" club as well? Okay. Why?

Saint Steven said:
In many cases, religion is preferred over a relationship.
You've already asked about consensus and how to reach it. Consensus necessarily implies drawing a line, defining-limiting-the nature and will of God in some manner IOW. To say that God hates evil is to practice just such limiting for example.

So, again, where do we draw the line? Who will draw that line? The bible can't do it on its own since it must be filtered thru human minds by necessity; it has no independent built-in electronic catechism that explains everything and answers any questions and reconciles controversies. So what does limiting God even consist of? Do we not exclude anyone who claims to have knowledge of God? Mormonism, JWs, Muslims? Protestants with widely divergent views? Who can draw the line?
 
Last edited:
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
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are truly saying that studying the writings of the mothers and fathers of the church is not useful, and that we can only learn about the relationship with Jesus in Church? There is nothing to learn by studying the lives of the saints and their writings? There is nothing to be learned from those who have taken the spiritual journey before us?

Yes, I certainly believe that one part of the relationship with God is through the Church and the sacraments. However, there are many other place to learn about that relationship.
Scripture presents no "mother" of the body of Christ, neither in time nor in eternity.

It presents only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, none of whom are "mother."

Let's not improve on the Word of God written.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0