Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

fhansen said:
Guess I wouldn't go near that far. Enough care? Hmm. Many sincere folk on these forums disagree on relevant matters but I've also read or heard equally highly-credentialed, erudite scholars taking opposing positions, both using plausible and reasonable Scripture-based arguments. Baptismal regeneration, a matter of soteriology, is one example and even the deity of Jesus can be argued either way going by Scripture alone which is one reason why Arianism could nearly take over Christianity at one point. Many matters that Sola Scriptura adherents argue over were never even controversies in the early churches as they were received and settled at the beginning, while the early church at some point convened councils to rule on and settle matters that were controversial-and some of these same questions become regurgitated today by more people interpreting the bible anew. So the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out at councils along with the canon of New Testament Scripture as well as eloquent teachings on grace against Pelagianism, etc, etc, by some non-ethereal but very real Spirit-led church.

True-and I appreciate the individuals, churches, denominations, et al that continue to value and benefit from the early councils and creeds, writings of early fathers, etc. Otherwise we end up with much biting of the hand that originally fed the Christian world-and we all lose from that act.
And who might rule on which "secular tradition" has things right? Where can this agreement be found? A place where the buck is unashamedly said to stop is a place that God should've established if He didn't already IMO. Yes, humans are unavoidably responsible for the confusion, because Scripture cannot speak for itself as if it included an electronic catechism that clarifies all questions whenever they arise, which they do, inevitably, if we're honest about the matter. Instead all Scripture is necessarily filtered through a limited humans lens, even as many claim Spiritual guidance or just "enough care". And if one's theology is primarily Scripture-based then it becomes a sort of best-guess proposition: may the "better" exegete win? Tradition simply adds lived historical experience into the mix, which involve teachings received before a word of the NT was written. And the NT, itself, attests to the fact hat many things were handed down orally, not having been penned. And there's no reason that they should've been.

Will not what was given orally be in complete accord with the Word of God written, since Jesus and God would not be contradicting themselves?

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

Hmm said:
Well, I've yet to meet anyone who is perfectly synchronised with God in this way.

I'm speaking in terms of the apostasy you presented, not of daily life.

Hmm · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
I'm speaking in terms of the apostasy you presented, not of daily life.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

Hmm said:
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Because God has changed our disposition, we do not apostasize (abandon faith), it is not something that we find desirable in any way, which is not to say that we never sin in our daily life.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

GDL said:
I also see Clare as having openly stated her bias, so I've retained that context and just tried to lay out the analysis objectively. I'm in complete disagreement with her admittedly biased position & it's disappointing to watch any of us carry on misinterpretations that extend divisions.

And you have been most fair in doing so.

That there be no confusion regarding my acknowledged bias, let me state exactly what it is.

"Bias" is not strong enough a word for Clare's disposition in understanding Biblical text.

I am most indisposed to see the situations addressed in the texts as altering the Biblical definitions of the words (and their implications) used in the texts; words such as justification/righteousness, sanctification/righteousness, credited/accounted/imputed, etc.

I am most emphatically disposed toward what the text is actually speaking depending on the Biblical definitions (and their implications) of the words in the text.

For me, the situations do not define the Biblical words, the Biblical words define the situations.

I hope that helps.

P.S.: The Word of God states that God justifies the wicked (Ro 4:5). On what basis do we maintain that he justifies the righteous?

Edit: Thoroughly litigated in 5 pages at Paul and James Reconciled

Hmm · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
Because God has changed our disposition, we do not apostasize (abandon faith), it is not something that we find desirable in any way, which is not to say that we never sin in our daily life.

Okay, thanks. I'm not sure I agree though. I think many people abandon their faith, in times of war for example. Apostosy may not be something that they set out to do but it's the net effect of the choices they made. Dehumanising others, as in the extermination camps of WW2, is turning away from God because we are made in His image. No-one can do such things and still claim to have a disposition for God even if they were so disposed before imo

fhansen · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
Will not what was given orally be in complete accord with the Word of God written, since Jesus and God would not be contradicting themselves?

Of course

Fervent · Feb 1, 2021

Saint Steven said:
The conditional aspect is somewhat of a slippery slope. What we owe God.

Yes, we need to be obedient. But, to what, and how is it measured?

It's too easy for someone to fall into the trap of external "obedience" to church society expectations and then ignore God's voice leading them to act on his behalf. Usually because they have been told that God can only be heard in the scriptures, or liturgy, or from the lips of clergy. That God wouldn't communicate directly with them. Who do they think they are? - lol

I agree there is no condition on which our salvation is based, that's purely in the hands of Christ. Our obedience, though, is also not conditional. We're going to serve something, either ourselves or God. When Christ calls, He doesn't simply call for the after life but calls for our whole selves, our entire lives. We die and rise again in Christ, and that means there is no longer room for consideration of self. There's no measure, it's 100% or nothing. Not a running tab of good deeds being weighed against bad, but a complete offering in which our whole lives are directed to the service and obedience of Christ. If we hold anything back, we're not doing enough.

fhansen · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
Because God has changed our disposition, we do not apostasize (abandon faith), it is not something that we find desirable in any way, which is not to say that we never sin in our daily life.

Sinning itself is to turn away from God in some small or large way. That's why sin earns death; it actually equates to death when so grave that it amounts to acts opposed to love of God and/or neighbor.

fhansen · Feb 1, 2021

Fervent said:
Modern arians begin with a premise that the Trinity is logically impossible and then build their doctrine from there. It is not a question that arises from reading the Biblical texts and while the formulation of Trinity may be peculiar to history the underpinnings of it such as Jesus' divinity are pretty firmly established Biblically without games being played to intentionally distort it.

Both ancient and modern Arians begin with that premise-we all do to for that matter because its simply not logically or automatically intuitive to believe that a man can be God, to the extent that it sounds blasphemous at first glance, arguably even to the non-religious mind.

Fervent said:
From my perspective the holy magisterium is the heresy, especially with clerical infallibility.

So I suppose that, whenever you assert that your beliefs are correct as opposed to another person's beliefs, whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or whatever, you nonetheless consider your own beliefs to be fallible, uncertain, and therefore not necessarily or particularly reliable.

Fervent said:
Infallibility is not necessary, and itself can be traced as a doctrine that developed over time until being fully realized by Innocent IX. It is only through a denial of history that the idea of a unbroken, infallible, holy tradition can be maintained and even then it is only on a limited number of items that can only be determined retroactively. Anything that changes must have been fallible, while things that remain are infallible until they change at which point they become fallible.

So, again, you believe your beliefs to be fallible, and so apparently not worthy of any real consideration let alone basing one's life around them. Infallible guidance by the Holy Spirt is absolutely necessary when dealing with the supernatural truths of Christianity. Was the assembling of New Testament canon a fallible event? How about the doctrine of the Trinity? It's nearly the height of foolishness IMHO to say that anyone with enough care-and presumably reading abilities as well since most of the Christian world has likely been illiterate throughout most of Christian history-would've just recognized the truth regarding those matters on their own. An external God-designated witness is necessary, just as the Bereans would've never discerned the gospel to begin with apart from the input of Paul and the Ethiopian Eunuch couldn't understand without Philip. In fact, I doubt that Christianity would be much more than a minor footnote in some obscure history book today if not for the Church. Anyway, my semi-literate grandmother from the foothills of the Italian Alps, long deceased, possessed one of the simplest and most beautiful faiths I've ever witnessed, derived from the teachings of the Church.

As with many other matters, time, experience, and controversy compelled the need to understand and clarify and pronounce on this essential truth concerning infallibility. Now I don't care where we find this entity that should be able to speak for Christianity but such an entity must exist-as a necessity IMO. And logically it must have a historical, traceable lineage to the beginnings.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

Hmm said:
Okay, thanks. I'm not sure I agree though. I think many people abandon their faith, in times of war for example. Apostosy may not be something that they set out to do but it's the net effect of the choices they made. Dehumanising others, as in the extermination camps of WW2, is turning away from God because we are made in His image. No-one can do such things and still claim to have a disposition for God even if they were so disposed before imo

Rebirth permanently changes one's disposition, the born again do not apostasize. Only those who are not born again apostasize.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

fhansen said:
Sinning itself is to turn away from God in some small or large way. That's why sin earns death; it actually equates to death when so grave that it amounts to acts opposed to love of God and/or neighbor.

The spiritually born again never spiritually die. All their sin has already been dealt with at the cross. Those whom the Father gives to the Son, no one, even themselves, can take out of the Son's hand. His arm is not too short.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

fhansen said:
Sinning itself is to turn away from God in some small or large way. That's why sin earns death; it actually equates to death when so grave that it amounts to acts opposed to love of God and/or neighbor.

We don't earn death, we were never spiritually alive, we have to be spiritually re-born to have eternal life (Jn 3:3, 5),
we are born condemned by the sin of Adam (original sin)--(Ro 5:18),
condemned already if we do not believe in the Son (Jn 3:18,)
by birth (nature) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3),
God's wrath remaining on those who reject the Son us (Jn 3:36).

Hmm · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
Rebirth permanently changes one's disposition, the born again do not apostasize. Only those who are not born again apostasize.

I disagree. Everyone has the potential to receive God but then to later reject Him. It's a consequence and one of the responsibilities of having free-will that we still maintain even if born again.

Fervent · Feb 1, 2021

fhansen said:
Both ancient and modern Arians begin with that premise-we all do to for that matter because its simply not logically or automatically intuitive to believe that a man can be God, to the extent that it sounds blasphemous at first glance, arguably even to the non-religious mind.

Yes, the premise is the primary and then the Biblical picture is twisted to fit the premise. That is a far cry from earnest interpretation in which the goal is to believe what the Bible says on a matter, so to try to hold up arians as a reason for not endorsing the supremacy of Scripture is completely misleading.

fhansen said:
So I suppose that, whenever you assert that your beliefs are correct as opposed to another person's beliefs, whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or whatever, you nonetheless consider your own beliefs to be fallible, uncertain, and therefore not necessarily or particularly reliable.

I believe I am being personally led by the Holy Spirit. My beliefs at any given time may be in error, but the process will lead to infallible truth.

fhansen said:
So, again, you believe your beliefs to be fallible, and so apparently not worthy of any real consideration let alone basing one's life around them. Infallible guidance by the Holy Spirt is absolutely necessary when dealing with the supernatural truths of Christianity. Was the assembling of New Testament canon a fallible event? How about the doctrine of the Trinity? It's nearly the height of foolishness IMHO to say that anyone with enough care-and presumably reading abilities as well since most of the Christian world has likely been illiterate throughout most of Christian history-would've just recognized the truth regarding those matters on their own. An external God-designated witness is necessary, just as the Bereans would've never discerned the gospel to begin with apart from the input of Paul and the Ethiopian Eunuch couldn't understand without Philip. In fact, I doubt that Christianity would be much more than a minor footnote in some obscure history book today if not for the Church. Anyway, my semi-literate grandmother from the foothills of the Italian Alps, long deceased, possessed one of the simplest and most beautiful faiths I've ever witnessed, derived from the teachings of the Church.

As with many other matters, time, experience, and controversy compelled the need to understand and clarify and pronounce on this essential truth concerning infallibility. Now I don't care where we find this entity that should be able to speak for Christianity but such an entity must exist-as a necessity IMO. And logically it must have a historical, traceable lineage to the beginnings.

The Catholic church is not the same thing as the church as the body of Christ. Paul was not a Roman Catholic, nor wasthe Ethiopian Eunuch, and to equate one to the other is to beg the question. The necessity of community does not imply that the particulars of Roman Catholicism are necessary, especially in so far as we can trace through history the rise of the peculiar doctrine that are under objection. And simply because there are people with genuine faith among those who are brought up in Catholicism also does not imply the truth of Catholicism, especially in regard to the doctrine that are in dispute.

Fervent · Feb 1, 2021

Hmm said:
I disagree.

That's about all that can be said on the matter, since the true answer depends on perspectives not available to us. Though I tend to agree with Clare on this one, simply because salvation is entirely dependent on Christ as both author and finisher. If He begins the work, the work will be done. Of course, for conventional purposes this can be hard to see because I'm pretty sure everyone who's been in the church for a while knows of at least one person they were certain was completely sold out for God who abandoned their faith, if not personally then indirectly as in famed preachers or other influences.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

Hmm said:
I disagree. Everyone has the potential to receive God but then to later reject Him. It's a consequence and one of the responsibilities of having free-will that we still maintain even if born again.

Biblical free will is the ability to choose what we prefer without external constraint.

Changing my disposition does not impact my free will, I am still able to choose what I prefer without external constraint.

Hmm · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
Changing my disposition does not impact my free will, I am still able to choose what I prefer without external constraint.

Why can't you choose to reject God then even if your disposition has been "changed"?

fhansen · Feb 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
In context, Paul is showing that no one is righteous because no one can obey the Law completely.

I don't see that. He's addressing justification in general, as it applies to everyone, Jews and gentiles alike. Just a few verses before, in line with the same theme he tells us,
"God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Rom 2:7-8

Clare73 said:
But did he say that anyone was able to keep them completely?
No, he referred them to the law which only condemns them for failure to keep it completely, so that they would learn their hopelessness
without another way. . .through his propitiation.

Jesus just said we needed to keep them! Should that be too big a job for the Holy spirt? What do we do then with Rom 8:12-13?
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."

Or a host of other such passages about what we must do, in order to inherit eternal life such as Matt 6:14-15?
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. “But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."

And if nothing but perfection will do, then how far can we go with imperfection? Where's the limit there, or is there no limit, no degree of imperfection, of sin/evil no matter how vile, that can kill us all over again, separating us from our Lord? Or is our vital connection with Him not dependent in the least in some manner with our degree of righteousness, a righteousness we must persist in as Scripture warns us to. Some almost seem to be afraid of this obligation. Are we just being lazy? or congratulating ourselves on recognizing our utter dependency on God such that we don't wish to move beyond that point, to the increasingly willful participation in His work in us-which is exactly what He wants? Jesus' burden is light, not non-existent, and we must do our part, no matter how small.

Clare73 said:
There is nothing outside the Word of God written that is spiritual truth if it is not in agreement with what is inside the Word of God written.

Exactly, which is why the following verse makes so much sense and agrees perfectly with Jesus, Paul, et al:
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." James 2:24

It's not that we're not justified freely. Its that this justice or righteous is real and personal and not merely imputed-so we must then continue to walk in it-and that's a matter of our wills now operating in conjunction with His will. And it's obvious from Scripture that no such continuance, of remaining in Him evidenced by our fruit is guaranteed at any point in our walk.

Clare73 · Feb 1, 2021

GDL said:
- "One is justification (Paul)"

- This is a theological construct. Paul is not defining justification, but explaining his use of a common word in a particular sense and event.

- Once we take this theological construct as a technical definition, it will begin to conflict with how the word is used by other writers, which is what I detailed for you by listing all the NT uses of the verb.

- "the other is the result of justification (James)"

- No disrespect, but this is the garbage in, garbage out verification & example of what I just pointed out. We make a theological construct > we carry it to another use of the word > and error begins to develop, as we will soon see, when you conclude that James is wrong.

- By such conclusion, you've potentially concluded the canon could be wrong, which inserts a whole added level to the complexities we must deal with.

- This statement is not wrong in itself, but knowing your premise, we must begin questioning whatever you say on this topic.

- If we were to modify what you've said & remove the theological construct, in order to bring the statement more in line with our Text, I might say:

One is a justification (Paul), the other [justification] is the result of that justification (James)

- The premise is now Biblical, as is the second sentence.

- We could even [possibly] speak of Paul's justification being the "first" justification in a person's relationship with God.

- But they're both occasions of righteousness: one when God makes Himself personally known to an unbelieving individual - the other when God tests a believing individual.

- Again, if your statement is slightly modified to reflect your first statement as modified, we can be in line with the Text.
I'm going to use this as an opportunity to point out a couple things:

- This is an example of why I've ceased to utilize the theological construct re: Salvation being: Justification > Sanctification > Glorification. Neither "justification" nor "sanctification" are used in our Text solely fitting this technical construct.

- It is my firm belief that we would be much better off just letting our Text say what it says, or better, just letting Him say what He says and conform our thinking to His.

- Again, no disrespect to you or your teacher, but you trust a teacher in your chosen theological camp, others do the same with other camps, I did the same for years and now find myself open to considering other views after having attended seminary to mainly learn to exegete NT Greek. The Text is the canon and at the end of the analysis not all interpretations of it are correct.

- I'm removing quotes to deal more easily with this teachers statements, which I'm italicizing for clarity:

James is speaking of the declaration (dikaioma), not of the imputation (logizomai) of righteousness.

- And Paul is also speaking of a declaration: Paul speaks of an initial declaration from faith apart from works and references the crediting to a new believer as proof. James speaks of a declaration from faith + works of a believer as a fulfillment of the crediting.

- They both speak of a declaration.

- James' declaration re: a growing Christian is subsequent to Paul's declaration re: a new Christian.

- IMO this may well be what Paul is dealing with in Rom4:1-2 - I'll paraphrase:

- Let's discuss Abraham according to flesh (pre-faith, pre-crediting, pre-declaration)

- Let's assume for the sake of argument that Abraham was declared righteous by works (this is essentially what Paul is saying by using a first-class conditional statement simply translated as "if" - it's more precisely saying, "if-and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument-then...)

- Doesn't this sound like Paul is dealing what James wrote some time earlier than what Paul is now writing?

- Paul will go on to clearly identify that he speaks of a declaration made much earlier in the life of Abraham, when God first declared him righteous.

- Paul does not negate what James said. He assumes James to be true, and then takes us back to God's first dealings with Abram and first declaration concerning him.

He is not discussing in what manner we are justified but demanding of believers a righteousness fruitful in good works.

- James is discussing in what manner we are justified - justified in a test of our faith. James is simply not speaking of the same declaration Paul is speaking of.

- Yes, James is demanding a righteousness fruitful in good works. Paul makes the same demands elsewhere in his writings.

And as Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be reckoned righteous.

- The teacher is cautiously overprotecting the word "justified"

- What does he mean by "reckoned righteous"? Does he mean dikaioma, or logizomai, or is he now inserting another concept for us to consider?

- And as Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be justified.

- So, there was no justification apart from works if works are not later evidenced?

- And as Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be credited righteousness.

- So, there was no justification / credited righteousness apart from works, if works are not later evidenced?

- And as Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be reckoned/counted/computed/considered righteous.

- So, although one was justified apart from works, this same one cannot be considered righteous without good works?

- At this point I think he began by protecting "justification" as being only per Paul. And at the moment I think this sentence is evidencing some confusion that comes from this.
James is not defining the manner of justification,

- Observation: Somewhat repetitive. Earlier he says James was not discussing the manner... Now James is not defining the manner...

- But James was discussing a manner for a justification and James was explaining the manner for that justification to take place

- The Pauline bias is clearly evidenced in this "defining"

he is attempting only to shatter the evil confidence of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for their contempt of good works.

- James is doing this and I'm thankful he and Paul both did this. I'm also thankful to this teacher for making this statement. I'm just not comfortable as to how he has gotten us here.

- James is revealing to us that our tests of faith are being watched over and judged by God and by people. We are a witness for Him to others. Being concerned mainly by God's judgment and His declaration of His judgment, we seek to understand and live by His will, and pass the tests He allows us to enter into for whatever are His purposes.

James is saying two things: an empty show of faith does not justify, and a believer, not content with such an image, declares his righteousness by good works.

- James is saying more than 2 things, but let's look at these 2 things:

- an empty show of faith does not justify,

- But I thought justification was was "apart from the help of good works"

- And I thought James was not "discussing in what manner we are justified" nor "defining the manner of justification"

- So how can James now be telling us what does or does not justify?

- So, is James speaking of another justification?

- and a believer, not content with such an image, declares his righteousness by good works

- Sorry, but I've been and am confused, and now my confusion is disconcerting me a bit and causing me to ask, "what do you mean by "image"? Is all this just about image? Are you connecting to the interpretation that James is just discussing a justification before people so we project a good image?

- This image projecting was part of the retort to MacArthur adherents that became known as "fruit inspectors." This retort said that many of the fruits could be mimicked by unbelievers, so how can you be judging true faith when darnel looks like wheat?

- God is the only one who declares my faith righteous apart from works and God is the only one who declares me righteous in any given situation requiring my faith and my work.

- I'd prefer more precision in explaining Scripture than to now be mixing in my declaring my "righteousness by good works." If I couple this with the teacher's first statement ("James is speaking of the declaration (dikaioma)"), I'm left asking, James is speaking of whose declaration, God's or mine?
"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered Isaac?
. . .and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited/imputed (logizomai) to him as righteousness. . .You see that a person is justified (dikaioutai) by what he does and not by faith alone.

- So, we make certain to now translate dikaioo as "considered righteous" in the first sentence, and then as "justified" a few sentences later?

- There are different words that could be used for the consideration in the actual sense of the deliberation of the evidence. Simply put these 2 clauses are parallels: Abraham was declared righteous for what he did...a person is declared righteous by what he does and not by faith alone.

- Considered righteous by whom - God or people or both??? This teaching has left me a bit confused on this question.

- I see no reason to mix translation. I see confusion inserted by doing so. I see confusion in this teaching. I am confused by it.

- I suppose he is essentially saying not to import faith + works from James into Paul. If so, I agree. I think Paul by his assumption of true for the sake of argument, has done this very thing: He has separated his discussion of justifying an unbeliever from initial faith in God, from James discussion of justifying a believer from continued faith + works in a test. All is good. Fairly clear water here (I think). Too much mud in the first cup.

To repeat one of my statements from above re: a declaration of righteousness discussed by each author using the same verb (dikaioo):

- James' declaration re: a growing Christian is subsequent to Paul's declaration re: a new Christian.

They are both a declaration of righteousness. They are not the same declaration being made under the same parameters or circumstances. There is no contradiction. Theological constructs frequently create and pass on contradiction. Welcome to long-term divisions.

"Righteousness" is used in both the OT and the NT, and they do not mean the same thing.
The meaning in Romans has to be clarified to understand Paul correctly.
Unless God justifies the ungodly when they turn in faith to the Promise (Jesus Christ) and have no good works yet to show they are justified.
Do you see any warrant for assuming

Hmm said:
Why can't you choose to reject God then even if your disposition has been "changed"?

Because the will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by our disposition.

Why would you choose what you do not prefer, want or like. . .and then continue in this undesirable, miserable, despicable choice
so contrary to your own disposition?

Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Similar threads