Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,308
16,144
Flyoverland
✟1,237,333.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I love being in Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican churches, as well as those surviving Congregational churches whose interiors have not been defaced (I love First Congregational in LA, especially the organs, but it was liberal enough under the old minister, and now that it has a new minister and joined the UCC, my former employer, who I left partially because they admitted the Cathedral of Hope, well, thats a problem for me).
Not familiar with Congregationalists but I have been blessed by being in some of the more liturgically conserved Lutheran churches. Where I used to live in Minnesota it was about 45% Catholic, 45% Lutheran, and 10% everything else. Or that was how it seemed back then.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟511,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One basis I would forward for making an allegation of an adversarial spirit is if the person/movement is more readily identified by what they are opposed to than what they profess. Many groups and individuals within evangelicalism are known almost entirely for vocal opposition and tearing other ministries down rather than their positive work for Christ. If even the angels are instructed to let the wheat and tares grow up together, who appoints these ministers to tear down rather than to build?

I am unsure whether your representation of the “many” in evangelicalism is accurate. Is this based on scientific data or just your anecdotal experiences?

But why does being “identified” matter? Who, or what, or upon what basis is the “identified” based? An allegation of “adversarial spirit” must be based on more than our human senses perceiving a specific “identity.”

I’m trying to make sense of the phrase “tear down.” What constitutes as a “tearing down”? What is the idea, concept, of “tearing down” based on?

What I’m gathering here is A.) People have some form of disagreement with what MacArthur said and/or B.) Disagree with how he said it and/or C) Believe he shouldn’t have said anything.

Exactly why they believe the above isn’t clear. It seems to me their basis of belief is a mere sense, a visceral basis, and not an objective or well conceived basis.

For instance, where exactly does your measurement of “if the person/movement is more readily identified by what they are opposed to than what they profess,” come from?

So far, the basis for alleging an adversarial spirit is flimsy, and based upon, ostensibly, one’s subjective notions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If he is already apostate, from what did he "fall away" to make him apostate before his mere profession of faith?

My poor choice. He was already dead (Ephesians 2:1). He had never believed, and was thus never apostate.

Acts 21:21 provides interpretation with the synonym "forsake". They forsook what they already believed in, the law of Moses. They did not forsake what they never believed in.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,205
6,162
North Carolina
✟278,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My poor choice. He was already dead (Ephesians 2:1). He had never believed, and was thus never apostate.

Acts 21:21 provides interpretation with the synonym "forsake". They forsook what they already believed in, the law of Moses. They did not forsake what they never believed in.
Good for you. . .
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟511,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?

No. There is no point to argue for the sake of arguing. Arguing, in a specific manner, is a reliably tested method for determining whether a point of view is rational, reasonable, logical, correct, likely true, mostly true, wrong, erroneous, or incorrect.

You made a claim, and believe, the Constitution is ambiguous as to how to resolve constitutional disputes. Your evidence? Well, not much, if any, evidence was provided to support your claim and belief.

Any evidence for the contrary view the Constitution is not ambiguous for resolving constitutional disputes? Yeah, the very text of Article III, the language used, and the rational deductions made from the very text of the language in Article III. In addition, analysis of the language of Article III in conjunction with understanding the logical principle the Constitution was never written for the express purpose of enumerating every instance where federal power did or did not apply, provides a rational belief the Constitution vests to the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution to resolve constitutional disputes.

Do you enjoy making statements without having to support them with evidence? Do you prefer not being asked to support your statements and views with evidence?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,205
6,162
North Carolina
✟278,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks, but not interested in such extra-biblical writings. I prefer the Text itself.
Prove your conclusion with Scripture.
Well, since I love the Reformation. . .and I thank God for the Reformation. . .and I agree with the Reformation. . .and since
modern hermeneutics treats the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Holy Scriptures as nothing more than human literature,
I don't think we have any basis for resolving our differences.

Thanks, but not interested in such extra-Biblical interpretations. I prefer the Text itself.

This newcomer to Protestantism in the last 75 years--hermeneutics treating Scripture as human literature--is an interloper.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NotreDame
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

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. There is no point to argue for the sake of arguing. Arguing, in a specific manner, is a reliably tested method for determining whether a point of view is rational, reasonable, logical, correct, likely true, mostly true, wrong, erroneous, or incorrect.

You made a claim, and believe, the Constitution is ambiguous as to how to resolve constitutional disputes. Your evidence? Well, not much, if any, evidence was provided to support your claim and belief.

Any evidence for the contrary view the Constitution is not ambiguous for resolving constitutional disputes? Yeah, the very text of Article III, the language used, and the rational deductions made from the very text of the language in Article III. In addition, analysis of the language of Article III in conjunction with understanding the logical principle the Constitution was never written for the express purpose of enumerating every instance where federal power did or did not apply, provides a rational belief the Constitution vests to the federal judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution to resolve constitutional disputes.

Do you enjoy making statements without having to support them with evidence? Do you prefer not being asked to support your statements and views with evidence?
As far as the constitution goes, while you forwarded that it is logically necessary for Supreme court review it still had to be explicitly declared by the court and Jefferson and others disputed it, favoring a review done by state legislatures. If one of the framer's of the constitution didn't believe that the power was in there, I don't see how it could be logically necessary. There is enough ambiguity, though since resolved, that the constitution alone does not answer the question of what to do in the event of a law in violation of it.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Site Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟511,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thanks for proving my point. - lol
You win. I give you the trophy.

Saint Steven said:
An adversarial spirit is pretty obvious. It's when you address someone as if they are your opponent, or an enemy. It's fighting to win, instead of sharing views.

If you have the truth, it should be shared in love. Make the other person a winner. Give them the trophy.

Did I prove your point? No.

The problem is on one hand you want to be able to slap the label of divisive spirit on someone, some group, movement, denomination, etcetera, without providing a lucid, rational way for doing so. Yet, not having a lucid, rational way for applying the derisive label, can foster the very outcome you seek to avoid, division.

Applying a derisive label with no guardrails to at least ensure and/or minimize the mistake of falsely/mistakenly doing so, recklessly risks division. There’s nothing you’ve said that would preclude its reckless use, mistaken use, of falsely being applied.

Thereby allowing the free use of the derisive phrase in a destructive manner to be applied in the most biased ways, capricious ways. That can have the effect of more division than what MacArthur said.

I proved nothing of your point. I did, however, show the arbitrariness your phrase can be used, risking division. You have no logical rhyme or reason to guide anyone rationally in the application of the derisive phrase. That kind of methodology is as corrosive to Christianinty as what you allege to be corrosive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was tested in 1971 before Asperger's was a thing, but yes.
Asperger's Rules!
We have the God given neurological wiring to have no interest in saying one thing and meaning another ... we tend towards above average IQ on standardized tests ... we are fascinated with information and facts ... we find it impossible to ignore what is going on around us.

[And the world feels the need to pity US, when it is the non-Asperger’s that
  1. Say one thing and mean another
  2. Tend to need more time to figure things out
  3. Prefer to be ignorant of facts
  4. Ignore most of who and what is around them.]

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,958
.
✟607,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
John told the truth, and Hank deliberately conflated sanctification (the perfecting of faith) with justification (which Ephesians 2:8-9 states is by grace through faith, not of works).

I also sense a spirit of “careful editing” to combine the apple of a sermon with the orange of an infomercial for a biased comparison intended to deceive.

What's ironic to me is usually John is the one I see being accused of conflating sanctification with justification. What his critics call "frontloading the gospel".
 
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

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2017
1,792
857
62
Florida
✟116,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's ironic to me is usually John is the one I see being accused of conflating sanctification with justification. What his critics call "frontloading the gospel".
I’ll have to take your word for it.
I don’t really follow the “personalities” of Christiandom.
I heard R.C. Sproul speak once and thought he was biblical, clever and entertaining. I visited Benny Hinn’s church and found the service just “odd” and too circus-like for my taste.

When it comes to “critics”, we have far too many for the good of the body. We would all do better to take a sip from the Moravian Motto: “In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.”

However, you are correct that it is ironic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,933
3,539
✟323,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"Sowing" is one's life pattern. "Sowing" to the sinful nature describes those not in Christ, not those in Christ who sin.
I'm not sure where your "distinguishing" fits in here but either way none of this journey is a free ride even if our only role is to cooperate; we're asked and expected to do our part. Over and over again in Scripture believers are exhorted, admonished, warned, encouraged, etc, etc, to do the right thing or ultimately face estrangement from God. He makes us His friends, but we don't have to remain friendly any more than Adam did. Good soil will embrace God and remain in Him firmly enough to persevere to the end, producing much fruit in the meanwhile. Varying degrees of poorer soil will yield less, and some will fall away completely, yielding no fruit. That's all we know-and all we need to know. Anything else is to put the cart ahead of the horse. We must strive, we must be vigilant, etc, and not presume that we are good soil and that we will strive and continue to strive as if we can predict our own perseverance with some kind of 100% certainty.
A taste is not an establishing, and Israel was part of the one olive tree in the Abrahamic covenant of faith in the Promise (Christ).
A taste is to be given knowledge of God-and to reject it later in this case. That can be done at any time, by anyone. Those who do not turn away by the end of the day are truly His-and He knows them with certainty, not us.
"If indeed they have escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, only to be entangled and overcome by it again, their final condition is worse than it was at first. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then to turn away from the holy commandment passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Pet 2:20-22
Yes, sanctification is the righteousness of character in which we grow after having been made righteous (justified) by faith, in which justification we were set in right relationship with God by his declaring us "not guilty," right with justice, by Christ's propitiation, through our faith and trust in that propitiation for the remission of sin.
Sanctification/justice/righteousness/holiness is an obligation, that we can fail at, not a sort of side-benefit, nor is it guaranteed once we’ve entered God’s family. We must do our part; Jesus’ burden is light, not non-existent.
Can I choose to be sinless? What are the divine consequences of my failure to be sinless?
Man is not so corrupted or weakened by the fall that all traces of morality or justice or conscience is destroyed -the image of God remains buried inside. Related to this Augustine would say,
"God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart."

The law is written in man's heart and if nothing else he can become aware that something is wrong in this world, that something's "off", something's missing- not as things "should be". He can develop a hunger and thirst for truth and righteousness in a world that fails miserably at mustering both of these in so many ways. Then, when God approaches and calls him, he may, convicted of his own failings and jaded by this world's ugliness, turn to Him in response, running to God like prodigals who've become sickened of their own ways and the pigsty that it brought them to. Man is dead, lost, sick, enslaved; he cannot raise, find, heal, or free himself. But once raised, found, healed, and freed; restored in that sense to the state Adam began in, we can choose to remain that way, being done with sin and unrighteousness and the death that it causes in our world. We can also refuse to be healed to begin with, or waver, and return to our vomit, our sickness, our death.

Can it be perfect when it is not sinless?
The "journey to perfection" as it's sometimes called, is simply one we must be on; it's the journey to God-and naturally consists of His perfecting/sanctifying us, meaning that we'll grow in righteousness, meaning we'll grow in love, making more progress than backsliding in the overall scheme of things if we remain on that journey. It begins, from our side of things, with faith. Then He judges at the end of the day how well we've done with whatever we've been given. To the extent that we understand the following statement, made by a 16th century believer, we more fully understand the Christian faith.
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

That ties everything in the bible together really: the teachings of Jesus, James, and Paul for one. It's the link that makes possible fulfilling the law while not being under the law. It explains how our righteousness can exceed that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, it explains the purpose, the end-goal, of faith, and why we're not justified by faith alone but by what we do since love obeys and works/acts by its nature, having nothing to do with works of the law. It defines justice for man, that by which God justifies or makes us just/righteous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,180
5,708
49
The Wild West
✟475,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
What's ironic to me is usually John is the one I see being accused of conflating sanctification with justification. What his critics call "frontloading the gospel".

Who would dare to criticize a canonical Gospel, especially John? I could see someone frustrated by the brevity of Mark, which I love by the way, getting antsy during Year B of the Revised Common Lectionary and related three year lectionaries, but thats it.*

*The solution there is either to implement Year D, which is a brilliant expansion of the RCL developed by Dr. Timothy Matthew Slemmons, which I would use if I had to use a multiyear lectionary, or better yet, drop the RCL in favor of the traditional one year lectionary.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

May God be with you and bless you.
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
19,167
9,958
.
✟607,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Who would dare to criticize a canonical Gospel, especially John? I could see someone frustrated by the brevity of Mark, which I love by the way, getting antsy during Year B of the Revised Common Lectionary and related three year lectionaries, but thats it.*

*The solution there is either to implement Year D, which is a brilliant expansion of the RCL developed by Dr. Timothy Matthew Slemmons, which I would use if I had to use a multiyear lectionary, or better yet, drop the RCL in favor of the traditional one year lectionary.

This short video will explain what I'm talking about from the point of view of the critics:


This is a more expansive critique:

 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: The Liturgist
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

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,180
5,708
49
The Wild West
✟475,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
This short video will explain what I'm talking about from the point of view of the critics:


This is a more expansive critique:


I didn’t see any criticism of the Gospel of John in those videos; there was criticism of John MacArthur and his “false Gospel” of “Lordship Salvation” by people who are so extreme in their contempt of Roman Catholicism they fault John Calvin for being too Roman! There was talk of “front loading” but I didn’t hear any mention of the Gospel of John other than a non critical reference to John 1. I only got halfway through the video.

Do you have something more specific? Since John MacArthur did not write the Gospel of John, if people accuse him of preaching a false Gospel in violation of Galatians 1:8 and thus being anathema, that doesn’t bother me, even when the people criticizing him themselves hold extremist evangelical baptist views I reject entirely. John MacArthur did write a book with the premtious title “The Gospel According to Jesus”, which really makes me cringe, as it reminds me of the false Gnostic gospels.

If there is criticism of the actual canonical Gospel of John in the second video, please provide me the timestamp, or else a quote, because regarding the rest of their criticism of John MacArthur, as I see it, all three of them are wrong, MacArthur and his critics, and thus its frankly not interesting to watch.
 
Upvote 0