Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

[mark46]

As a Protestant, I have rarely even been inside a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church building. Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claim to be the only true church. Thus inferring there is no other true church and that Protestants left the church.

But I don't recall ever hearing a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox leader declaring Protestantism a false religion. But that happens from the Protestant direction toward Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the OP video being a blatant example of such.

What's your take on that?

Catholics accept Protestants as Christians. However, they do not have fullness of the faith. The pope would say that it wrong to attack those of any other faith traditions. They all believe in elements of the true faith. Certainly, this is specifically true of Jews and Muslims, as we pray in the Easter service.

 

[mark46]

.

What's your take on that?

Also, you might consider the books "Catholic and Evangelicals Together". This is the result of a dialog and much prayer. It is clear to both these sets of leaders that there is something clearly much misunderstanding involved if both Catholics and Evangelicals are indeed Christians.

 

[mark46]

You could go in person and quietly sit in the back. .

All should understand that they are welcome to attend any Catholic service. The only restriction is they would not be allowed to take communion. There are often non-Catholics visiting relatives who attend our services.

 

[Saint Steven]

Catholics accept Protestants as Christians. However, they do not have fullness of the faith. The pope would say that it wrong to attack those of any other faith traditions. They all believe in elements of the true faith. Certainly, this is specifically true of Jews and Muslims, as we pray in the Easter service.

Do you have the words to that Easter prayer. I thought that was an Orthodox thing.

 

[mark46]

Talking about "a false religion" is that kind of thing we don't need in talking about fellow Christians.

Evangelicalism was, like Methodism and Pietism before it, an attempt to restore heart religion for people who didn't find it in mainstream Protestantism. Also an emphasis on bringing Christ to others. Both of these are strong points.

Its weak points follow from its capture by the religious right. Evangelicals have to an unfortunate extent bought into conspiracy theory, whether the conspiracy is scientists, Biblical scholars, or honest election officials.

In the US, IMO, this issue goes back at least to the beginnings of fundamentalism, certainly before the modern religious right.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Well Mac is correct we are not saved by faith plus works that is heretical. We are saved by faith alone apart from the works of the law. Good works are the result of Salvation not the means of salvation which is by grace through faith as per Ephesians 2:8-10.

hope this helps !!!

What does this verse mean to you?
Revelations 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

We do not obey God to be saved, we obey God because we are saved.

 

[Saint Steven]

All should understand that they are welcome to attend any Catholic service. The only restriction is they would not be allowed to take communion. There are often non-Catholics visiting relatives who attend our services.

What is the reason for the restriction in taking communion? (Eucharist)

Comparatively, the Protestant churches typically have open communion to all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord.

 

[mark46]

Mac is correct that salvation is faith apart from works.

By GRACE alone

I am bemused by Protestants who believe that the act of walking done the aisle or the act of a profession of faith (and an understanding of that profession) is required for salvation.

Jesus chooses who he wills to be his friends for eternity. When we stand in heaven, I can guarantee that most will be surprised by the many that you see there.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hank's experience was quite the opposite. (in reference to xenophobic - afraid of outsiders)

That was very positive. But then he was entering in.

 

[Saint Steven]

That was very positive. But then he was entering in.

And just to be clear, I agree with your assessment of xenophobia. But Hank did have a good experience from that perspective. Every church body has its own unique personality. Thank God for friendly churches. I have been very fortunate from that perspective.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Hank's experience was quite the opposite. (in reference to xenophobic - afraid of outsiders)

 

[mkgal1]

You could go in person and quietly sit in the back. I'm not so fond of the on-line experience, so I won't actually recommend that to you but just say that is also available. If you want I could give you some URLs.

Here's a link for you, Saint Steven:

"Greek Orthodox Church of Modesto - Parish of the Annunciation" Greek Orthodox Church of Modesto - Parish of the Annunciation

Tour of Orthodox church (6 minutes)

 

[chevyontheriver]

What is the reason for the restriction in taking communion? (Eucharist)

Comparatively, the Protestant churches typically have open communion to all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord.

I've seen Lutherans who have been very restrictive, and even a kind of Presbyterians. Moreso than Catholics.

For Catholics, sharing in communion is receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. One needs to be careful in doing that as Paul mentioned. There is also a sharing with each other, saying that when we come to this meal we all accept each other in faith. But if someone does not believe the same things, how can they partake of the same meal? Especially if they don't agree on what the meal even is?

Catholics will allow the Orthodox to receive communion, because we believe the same thing. If it's OK with the Orthodox person's bishop, it's OK with us. The differences with Protestants are such that we mostly do not believe the same things, in particular about the Eucharist. So we should not be presenting ourselves as agreeing to what we do not in actuality agree with.

That's a sad thing. And hopefully only a temporary thing. But for now it's real.

 

[mark46]

Also, you might consider the books "Catholic and Evangelicals Together". This is the result of a dialog and much prayer. It is clear to both these sets of leaders that there is something clearly much misunderstanding involved if both Catholics and Evangelicals are indeed Christians.

Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium by Various | Articles | First Things

 

[mark46]

What is the reason for the restriction in taking communion? (Eucharist)

Comparatively, the Protestant churches typically have open communion to all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord.

Yes, most Protestant churches accept all Christians to the Table; many do not.

The issue doesn't have anything to do with accepting each other as Christians. It is a matter of the Catholic understanding that communion is about fellowship in a community. Many churches have had decades of discussions with regard to who to accept for communion.

My personal view is that all should be allowed to communion. This allows Jesus to do as he will in the person accepting communion. In my view, not allowing someone to receive seems to try to limit the actions of God. Of course, this argument is NOT acceptable because it leads to everyone being accepted at communion, not just Christians.

I do believe Saint Paul cautioned us about those not of our fellowhsip receiving at our table.

 

[hedrick]

In the US, IMO, this issue goes back at least to the beginnings of fundamentalism, certainly before the modern religious right.

You’re probably right. From the beginning they rejected science and critical scholarship to some extent, but I think there was an increase later.

I actually have a theory about this. I think once you define parts of science and scholarship as part of "the World", and engaged in an conspiracy against Christianity, I think you've entered a world where truth is subjective, and it's easy to classify anything else you dislike as part of the conspiracy. So I think opposition to evolution and critical scholarship prepared the way to the recent election denial and other features of Trumpism.

 

[PaulCyp1]

If you know anything about the historical record of Christianity, or the biblical record of it, you know that Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Which leaves us with three possibilities: (1) Jesus was a liar, in which case we should not follow Him; (2) He was sincere, but didn't know what He was talking about, in which case we should not follow Him"; (3) He was God, in which case what He said was true, which means that following any church other than the one Church He founded 2,000 years ago means accepting false manmade traditions that conflict with His will.

 

[Saint Steven]

Here's a link for you, Saint Steven:

"Greek Orthodox Church of Modesto - Parish of the Annunciation" Greek Orthodox Church of Modesto - Parish of the Annunciation

Tour of Orthodox church (6 minutes)

Thanks much! That was very informative. (and friendly) I appreciate it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

This is a discussion. Weigh in.

Interesting OP saint Steven!


I'm not sure how much of this of this is Evangelisms as a whole. Macarthur seems a bit almost like some kind of Fundamentalism. I guess I see Billy Graham and people like that being more the norm of Evangelacism. I actually agree and like MacArthur on a lot of things, even though he is such a saber rattling hard liner he would consider me heterodox.


I guess I see Macarthur as some kind of Uber Calvinist. I've noticed over the years, on various Christian Discussion boards, probably the group that I have had the most problems with have been saber rattling Calvinists. I have had some decent Calvinist friends and acquaintances. I use to be part of a Theology Blog and message board Theologica started by an irenic Calvinist that finally went belly up in 2014. But when I joined Facebook, I ran across the Theologian creator, Michael Patton, of that board. It was known for promoting "Irenic" discussion of theology etc. among Christians of different backgrounds, and I thanked him for creating that kind of environment, and complemented him, that as a Calvinist, he was a lot nicer, than many others I bumped to online. I was however surprised that he agreed with me, as did many of his other friends and followers who gave me various positive emoticons and comments to my Facebook post to his wall.

 

[hedrick]

Some have referred to neo-Calvinism. The historical heirs of Calvin are generally not so aggressive. Indeed many of us are part of the mainline.

 

[Saint Steven]

If you know anything about the historical record of Christianity, or the biblical record of it, you know that Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Which leaves us with three possibilities: (1) Jesus was a liar, in which case we should not follow Him; (2) He was sincere, but didn't know what He was talking about, in which case we should not follow Him"; (3) He was God, in which case what He said was true, which means that following any church other than the one Church He founded 2,000 years ago means accepting false manmade traditions that conflict with His will.

How is this different from what MacArthur is doing?

There is a fourth possibility.
(4) You completely misunderstand what Jesus was saying.
He did not intend for the church to be a human institution that rejects the ACTUAL body of Christ. (the believers)