Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Saint Steven said:

Yes, that is limiting God. The Church = salvation ???
God doesn't NEED the church. The church needs God. IMHO

Click to expand...

God doesn’t need anything, including us. He chooses to use weak, sinful, limited man to carry out His plan of salvation, just as He used His stubborn chosen people in one little dusty corner of the world to play their role in that purpose earlier on. He established a church to receive, preserve, and proclaim His message to the world, sometimes quelling controversies by meeting at council to hammer out doctrine such as that of the Trinity, assembling the canon of Scripture, etc, as guided by the Holy Spirit. Christianity would arguably hardly be a footnote in history by now if not for the church. So yes, God’s church is a critical part of His plan, even as His people may like to bite the hand that’s fed it all these centuries.

Saint Steven said:

That pretty much captures my thoughts on the subject. Here's the scriptural defense if anyone is interested. Basically, everyone is already saved. Most don't know it yet.

Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection)

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Further reading: (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 15:4)

Click to expand...

ok. Maybe. But is this outline one that Hank Hanegraaff would sign on the dotted line for, you think?

I'm just wondering.

reposted to #532

Saint Steven said:

I think this criticism of Evangelicalism is spot on. (if we need one)

It's the angry face with neck veins bulging, demanding chapter and verse. And then using the Bible like an assault weapon to destroy everything in sight. (been there, done that, left it behind - hopefully)

No wonder the Bible-thumpers would be terrified to put their library out on the curb on trash day. They would be left defenseless, naked, destitute. That should tell us something.

Click to expand...

Paul's defense of his gospel saying other gospels were accursed and his saying that he would have the circumcisers cut the whole thing off seems some "neck veins bulging" language.

Jesus whipping people and turning over tables seems pretty aggressive.

John calling people snakes seems a bit hostile.

There are plenty of Scriptures that convey sarcasm being used.

There are some forms of grammar in the NT used in Greek drama that emphasize statements being made that would be like one pounding a table while making the point stated.

MacArthur expressing anger about something he sees as an attack on the gospel, is not an unfounded approach per Scripture. Hanegraff's calm approach does not make him right in his new belief.

With all due respect, your referring to those who value the written Word as "Bible-thumpers" is also a bit provocative.

I for one love & value having our Text. I've thrown out many of my theological books and rarely refer to any of the extensive digital library I purchased long ago. I have periodically wondered what I would do without my digital Bibles and exegetical tools I redeem so much time with.

Your statement about throwing out all the books is a good one. To answer you from my thoughts, I would remain valuing every piece of knowledge I had gained & retained in studies under the guidance of God's Spirit. I think the main thing I would retain (as commanded in Scripture) as long as I had retention faculties, is that Jesus is the Christ (the foundation of Paul's gospel & the Truth per Jesus Christ & others), the Son of God, the one with all authority in Heaven & on earth, and the one to whom all knees shall bow, as mine have for some time and still do both mentally & physically. I would retain that He is YHWH's Anointed (Ps2 also used by Paul in proclaiming Jesus as Christ) and that Anointed is translated Messiah, which is translated Christ, which is His title denoting His absolute authority. And I would continue to seek Him in prayer to see if there was something else He wanted me to know or recall to assist me in continuing having Christ formed in me.

There is more, but enough for this post.

Saint Steven said:

I don't know where Hank is at on the subject, but historically this came from the Eastern early church.

Click to expand...

Ok. But from what I've studied, Orthodox aren't all on the same page about the idea of Universalism. So, it might be good to bring that into the overall consideration, along with the fact that your OP is centering upon a particular segment of Evangelism represented by MacArthur and whatever flavor of Orthodoxy is being preferred by Hanegraaf.

We also need to hone in on exactly what the focus is for this thread? Is it the disagreement between both MacArthur and Hanegraaf, or is it something else? So far, all I've seen folks do in this thread is vie in piecemeal fashion for their own favorite interpretive position (or denomination).

See below. This is not some new thing. It has ancient roots. The western/Latin church gave us a Bible translation that is biased toward Damnationism. So, it is a miracle that I can make any sort of biblical defense for Universal Restoration. (but I can)

Click to expand...

Well, the fact that anyone in the Church anywhere either today or 1,900 years ago could be aware that the original New Testament documents, along with the Old Testament ones, weren't written in more modern European languages should be a hint to any of us that what we get from two dozen various translations can't be necessarily what we were originally given.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Click to expand...

ok. That's a nice quote. The only thing is, it doesn't tell us "how" and by what "hermeneutical" method each group arrived at their respective interpretions and doctrinal conclusions.

Saint Steven said:

Doesn't conflict?
Again, James says, "by works" and Paul says, "not by works".

Click to expand...

Swag365 said:

No conflict at all. Many people view justification as a one time event that consists only of a legal declaration of "not guilty," "saved," "righteous" or what have you. If a person views justification that way, then I can understand why he may think that the verses seem to conflict. But that is not the Catholic way of viewing justification. The way in which we view the word "justification" differs from how many protestants view it.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread there are three points that James and Paul could be speaking of different things such that there is no need for conflict. What does each mean by justification? What does each mean by works? and what does each mean by by?

Click to expand...

Swag365 said:

For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.(James 2:23)

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

If the term "faith alone" is fleshed out adequately it can be reconciled with Catholic teaching pretty well.

Click to expand...

hedrick said:

I agree. You can paper over the difference between Paul and James. But they actually don't agree. They interpret Abraham in very different ways. Paul's letters make it pretty clear that he and James don't agree. While this letter probably wasn't actually written by James, it's likely that it agrees with the historical James in this respect.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

It's that 40-year gap between Abraham's justification (Ge 15:6) and his "realization of faith" which just makes no sense in light of Paul's teaching on justification.

Is James using a different meaning for "righteousness". . .that it's a state we achieve and God simply recognizes. . .which again is totally contrary to Paul's revelation?

Click to expand...

Earlier in this long, interesting & unusually respectful thread, the discussion was about faith + works. There were some great questions and thoughts put forth.

Back when I was paying attention, MacArthur's take on salvation was referred to as Lordship Salvation, as has been identified. His students became known as "fruit inspectors" due to their focus on whether or not the "fruits of the Spirit" were being evidenced in the lives of those purporting to be Christians. Salvation is the "faith alone in Christ alone" version, which is likely why he is taking offense at Hanegraff going to a "faith working through love" version. Adding anything to faith is a problem in the "faith alone" version.

There is another soteriology known as "Free Grace" that strongly disagrees with MacArthur. It basically sees MacArthur as backloading works & Romanism as front loading works. Its faith alone version also staunchly advocates the "once saved always saved" concept.

At root, these are basically dealing with the Sole Fide issue. The Reformation never ended.

The earlier discussions re: justification in James vs. Paul is really the issue in all of this. Faith+Works still rages. It's still a Faith Alone vs. Faith Alone but Faith is never Alone discussion and I doubt there will be an inter-denominational council that would work this out at this time to the satisfaction of all.

Justification in James for many is still the issue as it was for Luther. The quotations of Gen15:6 by James & Paul are still an interesting component. The discussions about this earlier were trying to address the main theological matter in the video. Work this out and this thread becomes the greatest council in some time.

Saint Steven said:

@2PhiloVoid this is a really great unbiased presentation of all three views of the final judgement.

Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

Click to expand...

Usually, when someone presents an hour and a half video to me, I kind of roll my eyes, especially if not much info is given up front on it as to who it is that is lecturing in the video and what his/her basic qualifications are academically. I also tend to only engage other people's sources if they're going to do likewise for me.

HOWEVER, as fate would have it, brother Steven, I'm already familiar with Steve Gregg since he edited one of the books I have on Revelation, (i.e. Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary - edited by Steve Gregg).

So, I'll just end this little diddy by saying, "Good choice on the video, Steven!" I'll have to give it a look.

Saint Steven said:

If you behave that way on the forum, people are likely to put you on IGNORE. What does that tell you?

Click to expand...

Actually, on many of these theological threads on this Forum, behaving like MacArthur ends up being common practice as things proceed. I often appreciated what a Messianic professor used to say about debates. It was something to the effect you've never seen a debate until you see a couple rabbis debate!

GDL said:

Earlier in this long, interesting & unusually respectful thread, the discussion was about faith + works. There were some great questions and thoughts put forth.

Back when I was paying attention, MacArthur's take on salvation was referred to as Lordship Salvation, as has been identified. His students became known as "fruit inspectors" due to their focus on whether or not the "fruits of the Spirit" were being evidenced in the lives of those purporting to be Christians. Salvation is the "faith alone in Christ alone" version, which is likely why he is taking offense at Hanegraff going to a "faith working through love" version. Adding anything to faith is a problem in the "faith alone" version.

There is another soteriology known as "Free Grace" that strongly disagrees with MacArthur. It basically sees MacArthur as backloading works & Romanism as front loading works. Its faith alone version also staunchly advocates the "once saved always saved" concept.

At root, these are basically dealing with the Sole Fide issue. The Reformation never ended.

The earlier discussions re: justification in James vs. Paul is really the issue in all of this. Faith+Works still rages. It's still a Faith Alone vs. Faith Alone but Faith is never Alone discussion and I doubt there will be an inter-denominational council that would work this out at this time to the satisfaction of all.

Justification in James for many is still the issue as it was for Luther. The quotations of Gen15:6 by James & Paul are still an interesting component. The discussions about this earlier were trying to address the main theological matter in the video. Work this out and this thread becomes the greatest council in some time.

Click to expand...

It seems simple to me. James is not saying our works are perfect (they are far from it) nor do they earn us salvation, only they show others (God already knows) our faith is real. James Quote: "I will show you my faith by my works" Jesus Quote: "you will know them by their works".

This is one of the takes on justification in James - that it is a justification before people, not God.

That used to make sense to me. But James uses the Abraham history (Gen22) to point to God's test in the sacrifice of Isaac, which was between Abraham, Isaac & God (and the ram!), so I currently don't see the justification James speaks of as pertaining to being deemed righteous before others (except Isaac).

Paul uses Abraham differently and covers over 25+ years of Abraham's story (Gen13-22) to speak of justification.

At least one of the other posters in this discussion brought out how we're viewing words like justification and others in this matter. I agree that this is likely a key to understanding the issue. I also have come to see how a discussion on the forms of the word "save" and of "salvation" are important.

misput said:

It seems simple to me. James is not saying our works are perfect (they are far from it) nor do they earn us salvation, only they show others (God already knows) our faith is real. James Quote: "I will show you my faith by my works" Jesus Quote: "you will know them by their works".

Click to expand...

Sorry. I missed posting your quote. #536 is to you.

Saint Steven said:

What a wonderful post. (referring to the whole) I have trimmed out individual paragraphs to reply to.

What I would like to see is acceptance in the entire church of any individual we can recognize as a part of the body of Christ. That should be enough for us to be spiritual family. I typically give an individual the benefit of the doubt initially. I accept them until they convince me otherwise. I suppose this would be more difficult to do with whole denominations. Buy the barrel and then remove the bad apples? - lol

Click to expand...

We already have that acceptance, in part, regarding baptism. If you are baptized using the standard Trinitarian formula, whether by Methodists or Lutherans or Baptists or Non-Denominationals the Catholic Church recognizes and accepts that baptism. Sorry but the baptism of Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or of the Oneness Pentecostal groups is not accepted. Nor is the new age sort of baptism 'in the name of the creator and redeemer and sanctifier'. But basically every other baptism by Protestants or by the Orthodox is fully acceptable to Catholics. It goes back to Augustine in his dealing with the Donatists. Such a position is often not reciprocated by the Orthodox or by many Protestants. But it does allow me to see you and yours as a validly baptized Christian.

Problem with that, though, is that someone may be validly baptized but apostate, or validly baptized and never catechized, it doesn't guarantee that one is saved. It's only part of the answer. At least it goes a long ways towards acceptance, but it isn't the whole story.

Saint Steven said:

No offense intended, but isn't the proof in the pudding?

If the pedigree program is producing mutts, something is terribly wrong. It seems that the plates are kept spinning simply because you have yet to run out of plates. (madness?)

I really appreciate your honesty and candor on this subject. And I agree that the succession should continue. But my, oh my... something is very wrong here. And I don't blame succession itself. That seems to be a noble cause to me.

Click to expand...

As with any breeding program, one must be willing to cull all of the mutts and also to record results to know to cull the parents who produce the most mutts. It's harsh but necessary. We like to be 'nice'. But what we need is a breeding program where adherence to the standard is followed. There have to be excommunications. There have to be situations where people from an orthodox diocese are appointed to lead an unorthodox diocese to change the culture back to being orthodox. It isn't just a matter of hoping it will all fix itself someday.

In that regard the hard-nosed approach of MacArthur may have a single element of the necessary. Much as I think he was wrong about Hannegraff and definitely wrong to curse Orthodoxy, MacArthur does have a spine. Part of the apostolic succession is to choose people with spines. People who can make the hard choices to cull what the Holy Spirit tells them to cull. We have been selecting bishops to be nice, to be rather spineless, to go along to get along. We need more bull-headedness. Not just bull-headedness but real and loving and fully orthodox bull-headedness nonetheless. And then we must cull the mutts.

Jesus speaks of not pulling out the tares from the wheat field. Did he mean that we are to tolerate everything in the successors to the apostles? Some would say so. I don't know. I don't think so.

Maybe some of you will pick this up without flagging you by quotes.

A few observations re: James & Paul - some from Scripture:

1. From the information I have James was written before Paul. Many of these letters were circulated. Paul & James knew one another and I'm sure we don't know all they discussed, and its likely their discussions were theologically in-depth. IOW, their writings are not disconnected.

2. As his letter begins, James wrote to scattered Jewish "brethren" re: testing. When he deals with the faith + works issue, he's talking to Christian brothers. When he recalls Abraham, he recalls Abraham's test from Gen22 and he says Abraham was justified/deemed righteous by faith + works and not by faith alone.

Question: Does God deem one of His Children righteous when they pass a test?

Furthermore, James says re: Abraham's Gen22 test:

Questions:

3. When Paul quoted the Abraham event from Gen15:6, after discussing justification from faith, he begins in Rom4 with this:

4. Paul again uses Abraham and Gen15:6 in Gal3 to speak similarly to his points in Rom4. He says Christians "began" in the Spirit not from works of law (another topic) but from a message of faith just as Abraham had. And this is pre-Mosaic Law so why are the Galatians considering turning back to Law?

The initial point I'm addressing is about "justification." We have tended to get so technical with our terminology that we're putting ourselves into a theological box.

For example: Some see Salvation as a once for all event and some see it as a process. Some describe Salvation as Justification > Sanctification > Glorification. Box created > James doesn't make sense.

These terms are used in different ways in our Text (which I hope never to have to put out by the curb). Is it more accurate to say (just in one example): Justification > Justifications > Glorification?

Thoughts appreciated.