Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Clare73 said:

Well, a quick answer.

In Paul, justification excludes all human input of any kind.

In James, it is a recognition of human input.

Click to expand...

Not for the purpose of salvation or justification, only as a witness to others, God already knows.
Was Abraham not saved and justified before he became willing to offer his son as a sacrifice? Was he not saved and justified before he agreed to travel to a distant land? Was Noah not saved and justified before he agreed to build the ark? Do you seriously think James did not understand this? He was simply teaching us that true faith will produce works, not that the works contribute to our salvation. We are already saved and justified by faith and God knows if that faith is true even before we do.
James talks about "The Royal Law" and "The Law of Liberty". Is there a difference? If so, what is the difference? Understanding this could help us understand James better.

Saint Steven said:

If it's a sin for me, it's a sin for God. Is that what you are saying?

Click to expand...

The condescending of God (descending to a less dignified level) is totally different from what you are practicing (assuming an air of superiority).

Saint Steven said:

Conjecture upon presumption.
"Nothing about the verse indicates that Paul is referring to things in the past..."
Seriously?

Click to expand...

Not at all, it's a recognition of a historical mindset. The Jewish Scripture wasn't officially set until 96 AD, after Paul had written all of his letters. What he meant by Scripture is not necessarily a commonly agreed upon body of documents, but a different conception entirely and from his own words in 1 Corinthians he believed his own writings to be the commandments of the Lord, which would likely mean he believed he was writing Scripture.

NotreDame said:

MacArhur isn’t wrong here. It is believing that saves, not works. See post 502.

And you’ve taken the verse out of its context.

“12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.”

Paul is asserting it is no defense and no excuse to argue someone has or hasn’t heard of or received the Law, because there’s an instinct in us, a conscience, and the Law is written in their conscience, so they are without excuse.

Click to expand...

I haven't taken Rom 2:13 out of context. Paul simply means to say what that verse says-that we'll be judged by the Law regardless, knowing full well that the law-being under the law- cannot justify us. Only God can do that. The problem is when faith is viewed as a stand-in for that righteousness or justice, as if God is satisfied with nothing more than our believing that Jesus is who He says He is and that He saves us-as if we're justified by nothing more than believing that. And that is not the gospel.

To be justified means to be made actually just, and the basis of this justice or righteousness is union with God, established by faith as we're reconciled to Him by coming to know the true God, the God of mercy, forgiveness, and love whom Jesus came to reveal. That union is the difference between the old and new covenants with the old being a matter of faith in myself and my ability to fulfill the law by my own "righteousness" whereas the new involves the "righteousness of God" which comes as I begin to know-and so believe in -Him, so that He may do a work in us of placing His law in my mind and writing it on my heart ( Jer 31:33).
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

"No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:34

The name of this righteousness is love, which is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5) and is the very nature of God that we're to be transformed into. And this is why the greatest commandments are what they are. To truly know God is to love Him. And when MacArthur denounces the EO position that a man is justified by faith working through love he reveals a very serious misunderstanding of God and His gospel, one gutted of much of its meaning and purpose, replaced with a stifled and corrupted version.

Saint Steven said:

Didn't you already draw a line between Paul and James? And another one between MacArthur and Hanegraaff?

Click to expand...

I interpreted the poster’s line drawing necessity to be a reference to some demarcation, some boundary, in which MacArthur’s conduct is unacceptable.

Post number 502 doesn’t explicitly say a line exists, neither do I imply the existence of such a line. Christianinty is a self-regulating entity. It is the responsibility of those in Christianity to identify and denounce false teaching and false doctrine. MacArthur has reasonably identified a false teaching and is justified to denounce the teaching publicly.

There may be some boundaries in presentation. While the message, the point to be made, is sound, proper, the manner in which it was expressed may not have been proper.

Fervent said:

Not at all, it's a recognition of a historical mindset. The Jewish Scripture wasn't officially set until 96 AD, after Paul had written all of his letters. What he meant by Scripture is not necessarily a commonly agreed upon body of documents, but a different conception entirely and from his own words in 1 Corinthians he believed his own writings to be the commandments of the Lord, which would likely mean he believed he was writing Scripture.

Click to expand...

What historical evidence supports this claim of 96 AD?

Presently, the evidence shows the Torah was canonized 400 BC. Which means, when Paul is writing, the books comprising the Torah were agreed upon and the Torah was in existence. The books comprising the “Prophets” was canonized as early as 200 BC, no later than 150 BC.

So, there was in existence cannonized books of the OT Paul could have referenced when he said “Scripture.”

fhansen said:

I haven't taken Rom 2:13 out of context. Paul simply means to say what that verse says-that we'll be judged by the Law regardless, knowing full well that the law-being under the law- cannot justify us. Only God can do that. The problem is when faith is viewed as a stand-in for that righteousness or justice, as if God is satisfied with nothing more than our believing that Jesus is who He says He is and that He saves us-as if we're justified by nothing more than believing that. And that is not the gospel. To be justified means to be made actually just, and the basis of this justice or righteousness is union with God, established by faith. That union is the difference between the old and new covenants with the old being a matter of faith in myself and my ability to fulfill the law by my own "righteousness" whereas the new involves the "righteousness of God" which comes as I begin to know-and so believe in -Him, so that He may do a work in us of placing His law in my mind and writing it on my heart ( Jer 31:33).
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

"No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:34

The name of this righteousness is love, which is poured out into our hearts by the Spirit (Rom5:5) and is the very nature of God that we're to be transformed into. And this is why the greatest commandments are what they are..

Click to expand...

I haven't taken Rom 2:13 out of context.

Click to expand...

But you did, in the manner in which you used the verse to address a particular theme.

To be justified means to be made actually just, and the basis of this justice or righteousness is union with God, established by faith. That union is the difference between the old and new covenants with the old being a matter of faith in myself and my ability to fulfill the law by my own "righteousness" whereas the new involves the "righteousness of God" which comes as I begin to know-and so believe in -Him, so that He may do a work in us of placing His law in my mind and writing it on my heart ( Jer 31:33).

Click to expand...

No. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, and whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” It is the faith in the Son which brings everlasting life.

As Paul wrote, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10for with the heart a person believes, [g]resulting inrighteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [h]resulting in salvation.“ NASB. Paul also said, “but it is therighteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” NASB.

PAUL: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”...Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.”...Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.” NASB

We are saved and made righteous by faith.

And when MacArthur denounces the EO position that a man is justified by faith working through love he reveals a very serious misunderstanding of the gospel, one gutted of much of its meaning and purpose, replaced with a stifled and corrupted version

Click to expand...

The above is not what MacArthur said or did I the video. Your interpretation of the video is not consistent with the content of the video.

NotreDame said:

What historical evidence supports this claim of 96 AD?

Presently, the evidence shows the Torah was canonized 400 BC. Which means, when Paul is writing, the books comprising the Torah were agreed upon and the Torah was in existence. The books comprising the “Prophets” was canonized as early as 200 BC, no later than 150 BC.

So, there was in existence cannonized books of the OT Paul could have referenced when he said “Scripture.”

Click to expand...

The last book in the official canon was written around 400 BC, but the official declaration of canon didn't come until 96 AD at the council of Jamnia which is recorded by Josephus among others. The books were obviously collected prior but the boundaries were still open and different groups held different standards between the major divisions.

Here's a recent thread where I discuss Orthodox Perspective: Is Salvation by faith alone or by works? with Eastern Orthodox members if anyone is interested.

And the same original post which I first put in Denomination Specific Theology
Orthodox Perspective: Is Salvation by faith alone or by works?

I'll also add that I think this subject is kind of moot, because how many of us can say that our time here on earth is going to be without (void of) works? Going by Hebrews 11, which James 2 seems to be a reflection of, by faith (because of my faith, because I have faith) I have done things, and will continue doing things. The only way I can see the remainder of my life here on earth being without (void of) works, is if I lapse into a permanent coma. And even that would produce works because people would be praying for me. I think works are inevitable. Like it would be much harder to be without works, than it is to have works.

Saint Steven said:

Didn't you already draw a line between Paul and James? And another one between MacArthur and Hanegraaff?

Click to expand...

I draw lines that are sometimes temporary for myself but only God draws permanent lines for me that I will honor and they are actually lines of freedom, though there are some who delight in drawing lines for others which they will not even stay within themselves.

misput said:

not that the works contribute to our salvation

Click to expand...

NKJ Phil2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

"work out" is translating a word that means to accomplish, to achieve, to effect by labor.

Clare73 said:

Yes, credited righteousness to the unrighteous Abraham.

We agree, yes?

Click to expand...

Yes credited righteousness to the unrighteous Abraham from unrighteous Abraham's faith in God.

God credited righteousness to unrighteous Abraham's faith - God justified Abraham from faith - God declared/deemed Abraham righteous from faith. This is essentially all the same thing per Paul in the few writings we have been referencing. God justifies the ungodly from faith, not works.

Later, when God tested Abraham's faith, and Abraham remained in faith and obediently acted/worked in accordance with God's command, God declared/deemed Abraham righteous in this test - God justified Abraham's faith + works per James. God justified/deemed righteous/declared righteous the godly/faithful Abraham in this test of faith by what Abraham did in faithful obedience to God (faith + works).

These are what Paul and James are saying & they're both important. They're using the same word for different events in a relationship with God. And if we build a technical definition of justification in Paul, and import it into other contexts, we lose the general meaning of the word justified and how it can be used in different contexts.

This is partially why I stopped with the Justification > Sanctification terminology in describing Salvation. It's not wrong, but it builds a box that conflicts with the way these words are used in more of Scripture.

fhansen said:

And when MacArthur denounces the EO position that a man is justified by faith working through love he reveals a very serious misunderstanding of God and His gospel, one gutted of much of its meaning and purpose, replaced with a stifled and corrupted version

Click to expand...

"one gutted of much of its meaning and purpose"

I like this phrase. Part of the gutting, whether in or to what degree in MacArthur or not I don't recall, is to have gutted the meaning of Faith. Thus part of the battle "Faith Alone, but Faith is never Alone."

NotreDame said:

Well, you first need to back up one step. You presume a line has to be drawn. Does a line have to be drawn?

Click to expand...

Whether or not a line needs to be drawn will depend upon the context of what we're actually talking about.

For my part, I draw a line a mile thick when it comes to dumping on my fellow Trinitarian Christian brethren. I'd rather assume that their overall humanity [and suffering] comes as a consideration before any recognition of their sins or of their misconceptions about the meaning of Scripture. After that's done, then ---- and only then ---- do I look at our sins and hermeneutical blunders.

NotreDame said:

But you did, in the manner in which you used the verse to address a particular theme.

Click to expand...

Um, uh huh.

NotreDame said:

No. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, and whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” It is the faith in the Son which brings everlasting life.

As Paul wrote, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10for with the heart a person believes, [g]resulting inrighteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [h]resulting in salvation.“ NASB. Paul also said, “but it is therighteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” NASB.

PAUL: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”...Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.”...Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we also have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.” NASB

We are saved and made righteous by faith.

Click to expand...

“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” James 2:24.

And Christians know; Jesus, James, and Paul knew, exactly from where these things that a person does originates, from the love of God poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Faith in Jesus isn’t some wooden mental exercise, of simply believing, and then continuously placing one’s faith in that very believing. Rather faith is to enter right, personal relationship with the God we meet in and through His Son, so that He may, for one, impart His righteousness to us, a righteousness that we’re still obligated to have, incidentally.

NotreDame said:

The above is not what MacArthur said or did I the video. Your interpretation of the video is not consistent with the content of the video.

Click to expand...

Better listen again then. It's right away- in the first part of the video. No interpretation necessary.