Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

[Saint Steven]

You may not be aware, but Christianity is intrinsically exclusionary.

Many are called but FEW are chosen.

Strait is the gate and narrow the way and FEW there are who find it.

Christianity is not a religion of the many. It is not something for everyone. It is a religion for the few. If you are looking for something "facing the world with open arms of acceptance" you need to look some place else....

There it is. The Evangelical bias. The "members only" church. The vast majority predestined to eternal conscious torment for not being chosen, or called. Slander against God.

Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

 

[Inkfingers]

Christianity's not a religion. Man makes religion.

That's just word games. It's about who gets let into the church.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's just word games. It's about who gets let into the church.

Or who attends without the correct apparel, and is cast into the darkness outside, where there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a GREAT question. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, I just happen to disagree with where MacArthur drew it.

However, what are the chances that we could have consensus on where to draw the line?

I think we all know that the chances are low for any of us to reach a full consensus on all but a few central ideas in our common faith.

But Steven, you've brought up a good point, that is that "a line needs to be drawn somewhere," maybe even in regard to Evangelicalism.

Being the philosopher that I am, and in reflecting upon John MacArthur's seeming knee-jerk reaction against Hank Hanegraaff's denominational change, I have to ask: how do we know where to draw that line, and by what interpretive and/or theological principles should we all have a consensus by which to recognize where that line is to be drawn?

 

[Saint Steven]

I think we all know that the chances are low for any of us to reach a full consensus on all but a few central ideas in our common faith.

But Steven, you've brought up a good point, that is that "a line needs to be drawn somewhere," maybe even in regard to Evangelicalism.

Being the philosopher that I am, and in reflecting upon John MacArthur's seeming knee-jerk reaction against Hank Hanegraaff's denominational change, I have to ask: how do we know where to draw that line, and by what interpretive and/or theological principles should we all have a consensus by which to recognize where that line is to be drawn?

Right. It's as if EVERYONE brings baggage along with their religious position. But we need to determine which ones are spiritual suitcase bombs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. It's as if EVERYONE brings baggage along with their religious position. But we need to determine which ones are spiritual suitcase bombs.

Yeah...that would be an important thing to do.

So, who in the church gets to be the Spiritual T*S*A* on that one, I wonder?

 

[Dave L]

Yeah...that would be an important thing to do.

So, who in the church gets to be the Spiritual T*S*A* on that one, I wonder?

The Ecumenical Creeds remain unchallenged even today having disproven every heretic on key doctrines.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yeah...that would be an important thing to do.

So, who in the church gets to be the Spiritual T*S*A* on that one, I wonder?

Thanks for volunteering. - lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Ecumenical Creeds remain unchallenged even today having disproven every heretic on key doctrines.

Ok. Those could prove to be a good rule of thumb by which to evaluate ideas. But what were Christians doing before the Ecumenical Creeds were created?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for volunteering. - lol

Oh, no, Steven! I'm already stuck in a dead end job over in the restaurant concession stand area of our ecclesial airport ... I'm not t*s*a material.

 

[Dave L]

Ok. Those could prove to be a good rule of thumb by which to evaluate ideas. But what were Christians doing before the Ecumenical Creeds were created?

Doing the same. They accepted the challenges, refuted the heretics, and wrote the outcomes for the rest of us. To disagree as a church is to be a cult.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Ecumenical Creeds remain unchallenged even today having disproven every heretic on key doctrines.

You read my mind, Dave. Thanks.

The Creeds are a good test. Nothing beyond that is needed. Except criticism of blatant religious additions or infractions. Like putting a curse on everyone else. (aka MacArthurism)

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh, no, Steven! I'm already stuck in a dead end job over in the restaurant concession stand area of our ecclesial airport ... I'm not t*s*a material.

Right.
And no wonder people are afraid of flying. The airports are called terminals.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ok. Those could prove to be a good rule of thumb by which to evaluate ideas. But what were Christians doing before the Ecumenical Creeds were created?

I think for the most part they were allowing doctrinal differences, since things hadn't yet completely gelled.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Doing the same. They accepted the challenges, refuted the heretics, and wrote the outcomes for the rest of us. To disagree as a church is to be a cult.

Ok. So by what axiomatic principles do you think we all need to interpret the Bible. Is it safe for me to assume that whatever principles we all should use to interpret the Bible will be easily self-evident? Or do I need you to teach those to me, Dave?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think for the most part they were allowing doctrinal differences, since things hadn't yet completely gelled.

That could very well be. I think you're right.

But what kind of doctrinal differences seem to have been allowed? [And this isn't a test question for everyone. Like everyone else, this is an area of interest that I have been genuinely researching ever since I became a Christian. The thing is, I still don't feel that I have any final, diamond hard answers to it. ]

 

[Dave L]

Ok. So by what axiomatic principles do you think we all need to interpret the Bible. Is it safe for me to assume that whatever principles we all should use to interpret the Bible will be easily self-evident? Or do I need you to teach those to me, Dave?

You might know some of the bible without having teachers. But God placed teachers in the church. The ECs are what the bible says after prolonged debates with the most challenging heretics ever.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You might know some of the bible without having teachers. But God placed teachers in the church. The ECs are what the bible says after prolonged debates with the most challenging heretics ever.

But wasn't the bible saying all of what it says well BEFORE the debates were brought on by various heretics? And do the Creeds actually tell us HOW to interpret the Bible? Or do they just tell us what the final results were of the debates that took place during the time the Creeds were being formulated?

 

[Dave L]

But wasn't the bible saying all of what it says well BEFORE the debates were brought on by various heretics? And do the Creeds actually tell us HOW to interpret the Bible? Or do they just tell us what the final results were of the debates that took place during the time the Creeds were being formulated?

You cannot understand the depths of a doctrine without confronting the challenges to them and proving them wrong. So chances are, without the creeds people know very little about what they teach and believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You cannot understand the depths of a doctrine without confronting the challenges to them and proving them wrong. So chances are, without the creeds people know very little about what they teach and believe.

So, with the Creeds alone, coupled together with our bible, can we clearly understand whether or not women should be pastors in the church??? (... and here I'm just randomly picking out one little issue among many by which to demonstrate a point about the limitations of the Creeds for interpretation).