Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One could hope that, I guess. One theologian I actually respect quite a bit, Hans Urs von Balthasar, would agree with you. But I am much more of a pessimist in that regard. I know too much of the inclinations of my own bent and damaged soul I guess.
It helped me when I understood that salvation is something God did for us. We actually had no part in it. It was never about us, only for us. We can't save ourselves. Too late anyway. It's already a done deal. IMHO

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to apply a form of canonical criticism here and state that the 'conflict' if it were an actual conflict, would have resulted in one of the two documents not being included in the Bible as canon. Since both are included there is a way of resolving them without contradiction. The Church knew how to do it when both books were included in the canon.
Interesting then that Luther saw a conflict between what Paul wrote and what the Church (capital C) was doing. Enough so to lead an exodus away from the Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, Protestants have been quite resistant to accepting Catholics as fellow Christians. The OP video really highlights that sentiment. Obviously, I don't agree with the majority Protestant position on that.
I guess that protest really was an insurrection. - lol
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's very obviously a theological interpretation of how the word is used in a context. I think I've provided sufficient sources to show it is not the definition of the word. And you're leaving Paul & James in disagreement. I think it's clear they are not in disagreement.
I'm making no attempt to reconcile James with Paul.
If that is disagreement, then you must interpret James to agree with Paul who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven ((2Co 12:1-5). James was not taught by Jesus.
Agree re: not incomplete justification. In one courtroom situation 1 declaration can be sufficient. But then different matters (tests/trials) can entered into in which another declaration becomes necessary.
1) Please Biblically demonstrate where more than one justification (declaration of "not guilty," right standing before God by faith) is taught in the NT.
You're mixing the 2 together by saying there is only one justification (declaration of righteousness). I don't think James or Paul agree.
You are not prosecuting Ro 8:29-30, where Paul states that all the justified are glorified.
The unsaved are not glorified.

Where do we find in the NT that God changes his mind about his justification of anyone through faith?
2) Would you please Biblically demonstrate this assertion.
Agreement is good! There is a declaration of righteousness/conformity to God's will in handling a test as God desires.
Not in the NT of my Bible.
Abraham's Faith + Works were determined by God to be righteous.
No, God credited righteousness to Abraham because Abraham believed the promise.

3) Please Biblically demonstrate that assertion from the NT.

You are ignoring Paul's clear explanation and distinction between works and faith regarding Abraham in Ro 4:1-5.
I could push your last clause due to its wording, but I think your intended meaning is clear.

As another poster pointed out, God commanded Abraham to do something illegal. God tested his obedience, which is tantamount to his faith. There is a lot of inference in here re: resurrection and prefiguring what God would do with His Son. God stopped Abraham from committing lawlessness. He later allowed allowed others to commit lawlessness against His Son.
God purposed two things in the test of Abraham:
1) to teach Abraham to love the Giver more than the gift (Isaac), and
2) to pre-figure, fore-shadow, in the substitution of the ram, the coming some 2,000 years down the road of substitutionary atonement for the sin of the sons of God.
This too is a theological assertion some to many disagree with. And it's another discussion similar to permanency, if you don't mind.
It's the Biblical conclusion from "all the justified are glorified (saved)."
- First sentence: I knew this already. Agreed we aren't in agreement. Salvation is another discussion.
- Salvation lexically is not Rom5:9. Salvation contextually in Romans is Rom5:9.
Salvation, both lexically (words, language) and contextually, is from the wrath of God in Ro 5:9
- I think if you read your 3rd sentence you should see a mistake. If we at one time were not saved, and at a later time are "in" Salvation, then we entered into Salvation.
Our "entrance into salvation" (your terminoloogy) is salvation (NT terminology).
The NT does not present an "entering into salvation," it presents only "salvation" (from the wrath of God, Ro 5:9).
- As I pointed out with Scripture, we are also sanctified/set apart when we were first saved. Then we are further sanctified as we are raised to maturity.
Yes, when we were first saved, we were set apart from sin.
Sanctification is then growth in being set apart to God.
- That's basically what the word means lexically. Agreed.

- Are you agreeing that there are additional justifications? I'm saying this is what James is saying.
I am not agreeing that there are additional justifications, because it is found nowhere in Paul's revelation from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven (1Co 12:1-5) after Jesus' resurrection.
The 1Cor6 verse I gave you says Christians were washed, sanctified, justified. I think we agree that there is also the process of being sanctified. During this [experiential] sanctification our faith is tested. James seems clearly to be saying there is/are justification(s) that take place during this process.
James may well be saying such, and if he is, he is in disagreement with Paul, who received his revelation from Jesus Christ (2Co 12:1-5), which James did not.
With respect, I think you're partially therein by the way you use terms like justification, salvation and sanctification. If we drop the glorification component for the moment, have you not said/do you not think Justification and Salvation are essentially the same and that Sanctification follows?
I "use terms like justification, salvation and sanctification" the way Paul uses them, who (again) received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally, which James did not.

If we "drop the glorification component" we drop that which shows the meaning of "justified."
But our understanding should come from all the Text. I see you importing Pauline theology into the lexical meaning of a fairly simple legal word and calling that theological meaning the definition. But it's not the definition. It's simply the the justification event Paul is dealing with.
"Pauline theology" from Jesus Christ personally is "the lexical meaning" of NT words like justification, salvation, sanctification, righteousness, faith, works, etc.

My understanding comes from all the text, until James is in conflict with it--the rest of the entire Bible never being in conflict with Paul, correctly understood. At that point, my understanding is taken from Paul for the reason previously given; i.e., the source of his revelation.
James doesn't not have to deal with the meaning of the word. The word has its meaning. James is simply applying that meaning to a different event than Paul.
His application is contrary to the revelation given to Paul by Jesus.
And I see you as being in selective accord. I was not selective in what I supplied (other than limiting the number of sources supplied). I know your Pauline application was included, but that source specifically indicates it to be Pauline usage. The majority of the lexical information would not & does not specifically and automatically support Paul's contextual usage. Some would in fact support James.
"Pauline usage" thereby means it is the NT meaning Paul received in his revelation from Jesus Christ personally.

And that "the lexical information. . .does not specifically. . .support Paul's contextual usage" is supposed to matter why? . .when Paul's usage comes from Jesus Christ personally?

Your issue is with Paul, not me. . .and the lexicon agrees above.
As Fervent posted a bit above here, it's sad that theology is inserted into lexicons. But this is the condition of some of our lexical tools as they progress in development.

At the end of all this, the word carries meaning used by both Paul and James in different contexts and applications. I see no disagreement between the two.

As the lexicons pointed out, there are uses in our Text in other contexts. Context once again being key.
Or is it sad that lexicons and hermeneutics are inserted into NT contextual meaning?

The lexicons are in agreement that it is Paul's usage. . .Paul, the one who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5).

Does not Paul's usage of words--justification, salvation, sanctification, righteousness, faith, works, etc.--make it the NT meaning of those words, which then settles what the truth of it all is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm making no attempt to reconcile James with Paul.

1) Please Biblically demonstrate where more than one justification (declaration of "not guilty," right standing before God by faith) is taught in the NT.

You are not prosecuting Ro 8:29-30, where Paul states that all the justified are glorified.
The unsaved are not glorified.

Where do we find in the NT that God changes his mind about his justification of anyone through faith?
2) Would you please Biblically demonstrate this assertion.

Not in the NT of my Bible.

No, God credited righteousness to Abraham because Abraham believed the promise.

3) Please Biblically demonstrate that assertion from the NT.

You are ignoring Paul's clear explanation and distinction between works and faith regarding Abraham in Ro 4:1-5.

God purposed two things in the test of Abraham:
1) to teach Abraham to love the Giver more than the gift (Isaac), and
2) to pre-figure, fore-shadow, in the substitution of the ram, the coming some 2,000 years down the road of substitutionary atonement for the sin of the sons of God.

It's the Biblical conclusion from "all the justified are glorified (saved)."

Salvation, both lexically (words, language) and contextually, is from the wrath of God in Ro 5:9

Our "entrance into salvation" (your terminoloogy) is salvation (NT terminology).
The NT does not present an "entering into salvation," it presents only "salvation" (from the wrath of God, Ro 5:9).
Yes, when we were first saved, we were set apart from sin.
Sanctification is then growth in being set apart to God.
I am not agreeing that there are additional justifications, because it is found nowhere in Paul's revelation from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven (1Co 12:1-5) after Jesus' resurrection.

James may well be saying such, and if he is, he is in disagreement with Paul, who received his revelation from Jesus Christ (2Co 12:1-5), which James did not.

I "use terms like justification, salvation and sanctification" the way Paul uses them, who (again) received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally, which James did not.

If we "drop the glorification component" we drop that which shows the meaning of "justified.""Pauline theology" from Jesus Christ personally is "the lexical meaning" of NT words like justification, salvation, sanctification, righteousness, faith, works, etc.

My understanding comes from all the text, until James is in conflict with it--the rest of the entire Bible never being in conflict with Paul, correctly understood. At that point, my understanding is taken from Paul for the reason previously given; i.e., the source of his revelation.

His application is contrary to the revelation given to Paul by Jesus.

"Pauline usage" thereby means it is the NT meaning Paul received in his revelation from Jesus Christ personally.

And that "the lexical information. . .does not specifically. . .support Paul's contextual usage" is supposed to matter why? . .when Paul's usage comes from Jesus Christ personally?

Your issue is with Paul, not me. . .and the lexicon agrees above.

The lexicons are in agreement that it is Paul's usage. . .Paul, the one who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5).

That settles what the truth of it is.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What did "All scripture" mean at the time that was written?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Interesting then that Luther saw a conflict between what Paul wrote and what the Church (capital C) was doing. Enough so to lead an exodus away from the Church.
Luther had his own issues and they colored his theology. I think we should let Paul be Paul and get out from under Luther's thumb.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What did "All scripture" mean at the time that was written?
That's a far more involved question than might be expected. Paul quotes Jesus via Luke as Scripture, Paul refers to his own writings as Scripture and Peter quotes Paul as Scripture. That's not even getting into the questions of canon that were still floating around for the OT. So exactly what Paul had in mind there isn't as valuable as what coalesced into accepted Scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting then that Luther saw a conflict between what Paul wrote and what the Church (capital C) was doing. Enough so to lead an exodus away from the Church.
As far as the Reformation was a matter of theology, Luther and the Reformers objections had to do with penance which over the centuries has been dialed back from the excesses of the middle ages to definitions that are arguably based on the Bible. Many still see issues with purgatory and the treasury of merit as far as faith alone goes, but generally these lines are not explored instead oppositional posturing is taken like whats seen in the original video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
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

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The OT, of course.
Of course.

We have to work hard to support the idea that the NT is source of all faith and knowledge, and is the only source of authority. By What Authority (check out the book) do we believe that Scripture is the only source of Truth, Faith and Doctrine?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Since this scripture is inspired of God, I expect it includes every Word we have from God.

This sentence is properly called a "non sequitur". Let us allow that God inspired the commonly accepted translation of the appropriate number of books of Scripture. We might even allow that the translators are/were inspired.

How does it follow that God has no other Word for us? How does it follow that God doesn't speak to us through the Church? How does it follow that God doesn't speak to us through the saints (including you and I)? How does it follow that God doesn't speak to us when we meet in council or in worship?

And where is written in Scripture that the only written Word would be those words written down by those who penned the biblical volumes?
==============
As an aside, how do know that the volumes we call Scripture are the right books? Didn't the Holy Spirit guide those who chose the volumes and which words to include and exclude? Was not that guidance truly the Word of God?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The idea that one man is more inspired than another, as far as the truth is concerned, does not ring true to me
fair enough

So, please tell me which books of Scripture do you accept and why? which translations and why? Which books, if any, should be inspired before there a canon of Scripture was approved. Some don't accept the list of books determined by the men of Nicea. Why were these men right? Some of the Reformers didn't accept Revelation, James, Jude, and Hebrews as inspired? Why are they wrong?
God isn't even mentioned in Esther; is that book inspired? Some would exclud Solomon's book of erotic poetry. Does this book meet your test.

What is your test regarding which books and translations are inspired? Which are the "all Scripture" that Timothy writes about. Some even point out that when Jesus and his followers spoke about Scripture, they were talking about the Scripture that they had, the OT. Was Timothy really talking about a set of volumes that would be approve 300 years after him?
 
Last edited:
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

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This sentence is properly called a "non sequitur". Let us allow that God inspired the commonly accepted translation of the appropriate number of books of Scripture. We might even allow that the translators are/were inspired.

How does it follow that God has no other Word for us? How does it follow that God doesn't speak to us through the Church? How does it follow that God doesn't speak to us through the saints (including you and I)? How does it follow that God doesn't speak to us when we meet in council or in worship?

And where is written in Scripture that the only written Word would be those words written down by those who penned the biblical volumes?
==============
As an aside, how do know that the volumes we call Scripture are the right books? Didn't the Holy Spirit guide those who chose the volumes and which words to include and exclude? Was not that guidance truly the Word of God?
The scripture teaches God speaks the truth to us through scripture and the creation. It is up to each individual with the the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine what is being shown forth. The weak link in this process is invariably the individual unless He is truly inspired of God in the same sense as the authors of scriptures. Even these can be tainted by the hand of man but I contend the Word is able to reveal the imperfections that do creep in.
 
Upvote 0

misput

JimD
Sep 5, 2018
1,023
382
84
Pacific, Mo.
✟152,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
fair enough

So, please tell me which books of Scripture do you accept and why? which translations and why? Which books, if any, should be inspired before there a canon of Scripture was approved. Some don't accept the list of books determined by the men of Nicea. Why were these men right? Some of the Reformers didn't accept Revelation, James, Jude, and Hebrews as inspired? Why are they wrong?
God isn't even mentioned in Esther; is that book inspired? Some would exclud Solomon's book of erotic poetry. Does this book meet your test.

What is your test regarding which books and translations are inspired? Which are the "all Scripture" that Timothy writes about. Some even point out that when Jesus and his followers spoke about Scripture, they were talking about the Scripture that they had, the OT. Was Timothy really talking about a set of volumes that would be approve 300 years after him?
See Post 596.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a far more involved question than might be expected. Paul quotes Jesus via Luke as Scripture, Paul refers to his own writings as Scripture and Peter quotes Paul as Scripture. That's not even getting into the questions of canon that were still floating around for the OT. So exactly what Paul had in mind there isn't as valuable as what coalesced into accepted Scripture.
I have heard of the bit about Peter inferring that Paul's writings were scripture. But Paul quoting the Gospel of Luke BEFORE the canon was assembled? Tell me more please. Thanks.

So, what should be included as ALL scripture in the verse in question? Probably some items outside the canon, right? But what? Doctrine from "extra-biblical" writings? The Evangelicals will have a fit! - lol

They believe in a "closed canon".
 
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

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As far as the Reformation was a matter of theology, Luther and the Reformers objections had to do with penance which over the centuries has been dialed back from the excesses of the middle ages to definitions that are arguably based on the Bible. Many still see issues with purgatory and the treasury of merit as far as faith alone goes, but generally these lines are not explored instead oppositional posturing is taken like whats seen in the original video.
So, penance, purgatory and the treasury of merit are still part of the Church? (capital C)

As a side note, my best friend, an agnostic, gave me a coffee mug, which I use daily, that reads:

Perkatory
The anguished, prolonged period spent waiting for a fresh pot of coffee to be ready.
 
Upvote 0