Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

chevyontheriver said:

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.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

That works for me. . .thanks.

Interesting avatar (?). . .of course!
.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

After Judas died, one of the very first things that happened after the Spirit fell on them was the replacement of Judas with Matthias. It was an office to be filled. not a random or ad hoc kind of thing. We see this in the care Paul takes to instruct his apostolic delegate Timothy in the choosing of other bishops in new territories. There was a pedigreed choosing of successors, and they were known to be successors because of who had ordained them. They didn't just buy a shingle and paint it and put it up.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16* "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong * he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20* For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.' 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1: 15-26.

Luther found himself on the outs with the bishops so once he decided to make a break with them he had to delegitimize their authority and legitimize his own authority. Thus the new idea of Sola Scriptura as a replacement for the authority of the bishops. He needed people to follow him, and not follow consecrated bishops he disagreed with.

We all put too much faith in humankind. Faith in popes, faith in bishops, faith in theologians, faith in preachers, faith in our own understanding. In one way Protestants have all sorts of popes, and many of them are their own popes. Now the Catholic pope exercises infallibility in a very limited way. Many other people know no limit to their personal infallibility. That's way too much faith in particular members of humanity.

I've known my fair share of faithless clerics. To me it would have made far more sense if Jesus had employed the Scribes in writing an unambiguous manual of how to be a Christian. Instead he picked a bunch of flawed people and left nothing of his own words in writing in his own lifetime. That put a lot of faith in humankind. I would say it was too much except for the fact that it is what Jesus did. He did it rather than create an unambiguous manual. And when the NT was written later on it was not unambiguous, leaving it up to humans to figure it all out. We have the apostles choosing Matthias. We have Paul instructing Timothy about choosing bishops.

The popes, bishops, and priests of the Catholic Church have been trying to destroy the faith for almost 2000 years. And so far they have failed. Christians are the worst enemy of Christianity. Were it up to us it would be nothing but a wasteland. And much of it is a wasteland, with only an oasis here or there. It's only the Holy Spirit that has allowed the oasis here or there. My own bishops, who I believe have the authority to teach, only sometimes manage to do it. I don't pretend it is at all rosy. It bothers me. But I see my own weakness and I have to get off my own high horse to realize I'm not very infallible either. What little I have was given to me, and I could easily make a mess of it. MacArthur is a confident guy. I've seen to much to put that kind of faith in humankind. But then again, Jesus chose twelve, and one of them was Judas, but he didn't write an unambiguous manual. I have to go with that. I have to hope that the pedigree stays the course. I couldn't do any better. Nor can all the self-appointed denizens of truth out there.

Click to expand...

Dave L said:

where does

Where does scripture say what you say? There were no more Apostles after John died. Each church was independent and settled its own affairs. Institutional Churchism, not the least scriptural, didn't exist until the equally unbiblical rise of the monarchial bishops.

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

The last books of the NT were written around or before 100 AD. So EVERYTHING that happened after that is not Scriptural in the sense you understand it. What you fear is called 'early Catholicism', the 'decline' of Christianity evidenced even as early as Ignatius of Antioch (monarchical bishops) in 107 AD. But that 'early Catholicism', or as you refer to it 'institutional churchism' was also found within the canon of the NT. To actually get rid of it you have to rip out some books of the Bible. The movement to find 'early Catholicism' was a historical revisionism that thought it could find and delete 'early Catholicism' from Christianity. It was closely allied intellectually to the 'search for the historical Jesus', devoid of embarrassing things like miracles. What actually happened was that 'early Catholicism' was found to be embedded into the NT. And that 'early Catholicism' is the organic development of Christianity as an acorn becomes a seedling and continues to grow into a tree. Sorry you disagree.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Alright, @Saint Steven, I'll tell you what. Since no one seems to have gotten very far with looking at and engaging the actual locus of the concept of so-called "Evangelicalism," I'm going to leave to point here for further consideration. These considerations can be further unpacked for what they each are in their implication.

1) John MacAthur is a part of the denomination of "Bible Church" congregations, specifically. So, we might keep this in mind and not allow too much spillage from any of MacArthur's own views and over-emphases stemming from his own stiff interpretive framework to run over into the larger, multi-denominational denotation that can apply to other "Evangelicals."

If we don't keep this in mind, then we're going to end up confusing our Billy Graham and Francis Collins type folks with those other John MacArthur type folks, even though they're all in some sense "evangelical." The thing is---they ain't the same!

2) I'll just toss out the suggestion that books are useful, and on the subject of Evangelicalism and its histories and implications, I have several. However, I'm just citing one here that I think is a good place to begin for anyone who wants to further contemplation both the strengths and foibles of American Evangelicals:

Everything You Know about Evangelicals Is Wrong: Well, Almost Everything - by Steve Wilkens & Don Thorsen.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

Luke 1:39-43 “At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
John 19:25-27 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Thanks. . .

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus, but Scripture nowhere presents her as the mother of the body of all believers in Christ.

And John taking responsibility for Mary at Jesus' death (Jn 19:27) does not make her the mother of the body of all believers in Christ.

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

After Judas died, one of the very first things that happened after the Spirit fell on them was the replacement of Judas with Matthias. It was an office to be filled. not a random or ad hoc kind of thing. We see this in the care Paul takes to instruct his apostolic delegate Timothy in the choosing of other bishops in new territories. There was a pedigreed choosing of successors, and they were known to be successors because of who had ordained them. They didn't just buy a shingle and paint it and put it up.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16* "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong * he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20* For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.' 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1: 15-26.

Luther found himself on the outs with the bishops so once he decided to make a break with them he had to delegitimize their authority and legitimize his own authority. Thus the new idea of Sola Scriptura as a replacement for the authority of the bishops. He needed people to follow him, and not follow consecrated bishops he disagreed with.

We all put too much faith in humankind. Faith in popes, faith in bishops, faith in theologians, faith in preachers, faith in our own understanding. In one way Protestants have all sorts of popes, and many of them are their own popes. Now the Catholic pope exercises infallibility in a very limited way. Many other people know no limit to their personal infallibility. That's way too much faith in particular members of humanity.

I've known my fair share of faithless clerics. To me it would have made far more sense if Jesus had employed the Scribes in writing an unambiguous manual of how to be a Christian. Instead he picked a bunch of flawed people and left nothing of his own words in writing in his own lifetime. That put a lot of faith in humankind. I would say it was too much except for the fact that it is what Jesus did. He did it rather than create an unambiguous manual. And when the NT was written later on it was not unambiguous, leaving it up to humans to figure it all out. We have the apostles choosing Matthias. We have Paul instructing Timothy about choosing bishops.

The popes, bishops, and priests of the Catholic Church have been trying to destroy the faith for almost 2000 years. And so far they have failed. Christians are the worst enemy of Christianity. Were it up to us it would be nothing but a wasteland. And much of it is a wasteland, with only an oasis here or there. It's only the Holy Spirit that has allowed the oasis here or there. My own bishops, who I believe have the authority to teach, only sometimes manage to do it. I don't pretend it is at all rosy. It bothers me. But I see my own weakness and I have to get off my own high horse to realize I'm not very infallible either. What little I have was given to me, and I could easily make a mess of it. MacArthur is a confident guy. I've seen to much to put that kind of faith in humankind. But then again, Jesus chose twelve, and one of them was Judas, but he didn't write an unambiguous manual. I have to go with that. I have to hope that the pedigree stays the course. I couldn't do any better. Nor can all the self-appointed denizens of truth out there.

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

"Behold thy mother"

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

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.

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

Do you truly not understand the meanings of the "fathers of the Church" and the "mothers of the church"? Over the centuries, there have many of both.

Click to expand...

Dave L said:

You cannot prove your position from scripture.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

Thanks. . .

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus, but Scripture nowhere presents her as the mother of the body of all believers in Christ.

And John taking responsibility for Mary at Jesus' death (Jn 19:27) does not make her the mother of the body of all believers in Christ.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

A lot of your position is understandable, there is some false history in it. And it's pretty important.

Sola Scriptura was the rallying cry of the Hussites long before Luther, and that largely because bishops had restricted the common man's access to the gospel as they were not preaching it in a language that could be understood, and they were persecuting those who dared to preach in the vulgar tongues. The "priesthood" had absconded the royal priesthood of all believers and made it the sole possession of a few. Sola Scriptura is a statement that when there is a conflict between what is written in the Bible, and what the church teaches, that the one that gives way is church teaching. It does not give authority to Luther, though it did reduce the authority of the Catholic church since the dictums of bishops and popes now had a semi-objective standard to be measured against rather than being free to command their whims.

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

A lot of your position is understandable, there is some false history in it. And it's pretty important.

Ask ten Protestants who came up with Sola Scriptura and nine will tell you Martin Luther. While the Hussites might lay claim to it, it grew legs with Luther. And it wasn't like all the bishops of the Catholic Church didn't know about or ignored Scripture either, following only their whims in issuing dictates. The period of the reformation and before was very fluid and does not simplify into one where Bible and priesthood were stolen from the people by the clergy. In fact the thesis of Eamon Duffy's relatively recent book (1992) called 'The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580' shows that at least in England there was no crying need for a Reformation but that it was simply imposed by the crown. The book shows what the religious life of ordinary English people was like and how that was upended without need. The German situation was different and the Czech experience may also have been different. Point is you have oversimplified your own history.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

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

Thanks.

Click to expand...