Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

[chevyontheriver]

A Christological title found where - in our canon or elsewhere?

Other than Luke 1:43 (mother of my Lord) where is "the mother of God" found?

I think Steve commented on this already, but why is Mary prayed to? Where in the canon are we directed to pray to her?

Many questions on topic. I'm sure we all know this.

Good discussion, BTW.

Theotokos - Wikipedia

The Bible Supports Praying to the Saints

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. It's too much for us to ask for unity, but I think we can manage solidarity among us as an expression of the charity we should find in our hearts for each other that is brought about by the internal work of the Holy Spirit. But for some reason, some folks just have to push for control ... instead.

Am I pushing control? I didn't think I was. But if that's how it is perceived then I get the resistance.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I wonder if that Greek word is anywhere to be found in the New Testament. Search yields zero results.

The closest thing is Luke 1:43. I take them as essentially equivalent.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's a non-aggression pact.

Perhaps. But would it be a step in the direction of unity?

 

[Saint Steven]

The closest thing is Luke 1:43. I take them as essentially equivalent.

That's interesting.
Begs the question: What did Elisabeth mean by saying, "my Lord"?

Luke 1:43 NIV
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If we could just all agree that Mary is not to be worshiped, which we all in theory agree to, wouldn't that be something. Maybe if some excesses were definitively ruled out by all we could eventually agree on the non-excess parts.

And as to your second example, we need less rock-star church leaders. Pope John Paul II was great, but the Church does not need rock stars, not as popes, or as bishops, or as patriarchs, or TV preachers, or street-corner apostles. We need giants badly but not rock stars. Prophecy is not to be despised but the prophet needs to be stoned if his words do not pass the test. That should shut up the rock star prophets. (This is a metaphorical stoning as I could not advocate a literal stoning in this forum.)

Hey now!!! I happen to be partial to rock-stars! I'll just take it that you're also being metaphorical in applying your choice of deconstructive analogy here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Am I pushing control? I didn't think I was. But if that's how it is perceived then I get the resistance.

Sorry for any confusion of inference I may have caused in what I said earlier.

What I meant to specifically refer to was the over-control we've seen not only among various national or kingdom powers during the past 17 centuries since the time of Constantine, but even in our present time 'today.' It would be too little to say that where I live, there are a number of leaders who literally claim the authority to discern for the masses whom they lead not only the nature of politics, but also the prerogative to prophecy doom upon those who oppose them. It's beyond ridiculous.

Again, I'm not referring to the Roman Catholic Church in saying this. I'm referring to what are essentially Uber-Charismatic leaders who believe that they, or certain prophets among them, are 'Apostles' (with a capital 'A'). It is these kinds of claims that end up causing further divisions among all of us in various denominations. And I'm completely in agreement with what you said earlier that prophets of any sort, anywhere, in any Christian Church, need to be held accountable for their uber-utterances.

 

[GDL]

Theotokos - Wikipedia

The Bible Supports Praying to the Saints

Thanks for these. Informative. Didn't read for precision, but my overview opinion is that these are both very creative and unnecessary traditions and/or doctrines that are open to many questions, as some of the council debates evidenced re: mother of God.

I understand the discussion re: the hypostatic union and thus the debate re: Theotokos, and can even find some sense in it. I can also see the sense in backing off to Christotokos. I just don't understand why such things need to be made such an issue when we have Scripture that plainly and literally says, "the mother of my Lord" (a good translation of the Greek). So, Mary was the mother of our Lord.

Certainly this Scripture in context goes into being Messianic, picks up the Seed of Abraham, the descendant of King David, the Savior. But to blend the hypostatic union into the motherhood concept, seems unnecessary and easily opens the door into the Mary worship that is deserved of critique, even substantial disagreement. She was indeed blessed. She also was not sinless, nor was Jesus her only child and by Joseph.

Again, unnecessary and too open for conflict. I've never really done any homework on it. If Scripture somewhere clearly states the mother of God concept, I'd hear the case and change my mind.

Re: the prayers to the saints, that seems very creative and wide open to debate. What's the point, when we have direct access to our Father & our Lord?

Thanks again for the links.

 

[Saint Steven]

And I'm completely in agreement with what you said earlier that prophets of any sort, anywhere, in any Christian Church, need to be held accountable for their uber-utterances.

Hmm... prophets of any sort? Depends on your definition of prophecy, I suppose.

1 Corinthians 14:3 NIV
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm... prophets of any sort? Depends on your definition of prophecy, I suppose.

1 Corinthians 14:3 NIV
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.

Yes, we're ALL accountable to some limited extent, and the higher the status and influence we have within the Church, the larger the responsibility we also have. But to be clearer, thus far in my last few posts, all I've been really focusing upon are the various leaders who claim 'Apostolic' status in their prophetic preaching.

 

[NotreDame]

Rather than an opinion having no value, I think it has value. More so, if the thought resonates with me.

I always will read what is being said outside of the dry chapter and verse dogma or apologetics. I know the verses. What is said between the verses is where the Spirit lives. But many devalue it, preferring logic and authoritative law.

God doesn't live in a book, he lives in the lives he is changing. This is worthy of note. Regurgitating dry information to make an argument falls flat with me. Where's the life?

Yet another reason why Evangelicalism can be a false religion. Dry bones.

The “book” is God’s revelation of who he is, how he thinks, behaves, his law, his plan, to humanity. The “book” is very much a representation of God as he exists. The “book” is authoritative.

Paul has very strong words for those teaching a false doctrine. In Galatians, Titus, and 1 Timothy, not exhaustive, Paul rebukes false teachers and doctrine with strong wording.

“Some have rejected these [faith and good conscience] and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymanaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:19b-20).” “Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:16-18).” “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of teh circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach–and that for the sake of dishonest gain” (Titus 1:11). “correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Tim. 4:2-5). “hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of teh circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach–and that for the sake of dishonest gain” (Titus 1:11).

“Rebuke them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth” (Titus 1:13-14).

“You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1a).

MacArthur is rebuking, he is correcting, his specific conduct that is the subject of conversation is consistent with Paul’s instruction.

More than just your personal, religious philosophy is needed to rebuke MacArthur’s actions as inconsistent with the God of the Bible. After all, the Scripture is “God breathed” and “God inspired” and MacArthur has acted consistent with Scripture.

What is said between the verses is where the Spirit lives.

Quite impossible, since all Scripture is “God breathed” and “God inspired.”

What “is said between the verses” will be consistent with what is said in Scripture.

Yet another reason why Evangelicalism can be a false religion. Dry bones

“Can be”? Anything “can be” a false religion, including your own personal, religious philosophy. However, the “can be” argument is an exercise in futility.

Jesus and Paul gave instruction for ascertaining false religion. Simply, if what is taught isn’t consistent with Scripture, or contradictory to Scripture, it isn’t truth and is false. There’s not one verse from Scripture that supports the idea Evangelicalism is or likely is false religion.

I have more respect for personal testimony than many do, apparently.

If your self-avowed proclamation at other’s expense based on nothing more than speculation renders a feeling of superiority for you, then puff out your chest and beat your chest man. But the above is a symptom of the problem, you prefer to speculate about your superiority in some area to another’s deficiency upon which you make your point. Logical reasoning is much preferred.

Oh, I know you said “apparently,” but even the “seemingly” is speculation at another’s expense for the purpose of aggrandizement.

 

[Clare73]

What is said between the verses is where the Spirit lives.

Now that's some snow-flake theology.

 

[Saint Steven]

There’s not one verse from Scripture that supports the idea Evangelicalism is or likely is false religion.

Aren't we called to be "fruit inspectors"? That's what this whole topic is about. The actions of MacArthur are a snapshot of the spirit of Evangelicalism. What we saw in the video from MacArthur was a viscous attack. Which you are happy to defend.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Aren't we called to be "fruit inspectors"?

Oh heavens, no. That's the way of the hypocrite who denies the log in his own eye while pointing out the specks in the eyes of his neighbor.

What the Scriptures do teach is "test the spirits", we should measure teaching and practice against the solid foundation of our faith, Christ our Lord and His Holy Gospel. We have the Scriptures, we have the historic confession of the Church, we have good, true, historical, biblically sound theology by which to measure all things, and we should do this.

By that metric I do regard Evangelicalism to be--on the whole--false. Because the theological foundations of Evangelicalism are built upon the unstable sand of the false theologies of Decisionism/Revivalism, Pietism, and Enthusiasm; all are theologies of glory, rather than Theology of the Cross.

But then I am speaking from an emphatically Lutheran perspective.

-CryptoLutheran