Ligonier Ministries’ State of Theology

Rubiks

proud libtard
Aug 14, 2012
4,293
2,259
United States
✟137,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Rule of thumb: stop reading entirely when people talk about "the clear meaning of scripture."

99% of the time they are taking a single writer at face value (usually Paul) and making fudging every other writer to fit that writer's theology.

Why can't we read Paul's theology in the light of Jesus instead of the other way around? Jesus says in Luke 10:25-28 (NRSV) Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life? He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

If any Christian preacher said this they would immediately called out as a heretic. Some even think the teaching of Jesus can be disregarded completely, because it was "before the gospel was given." The "gospel" was supposedly given only to Paul by private revelation.

I am not necessarily suggesting Paul is a false preacher. Paul's writing the most heavily debated in academia in how to interpret. 2 Peter even admits Paul's letters are difficult to understand. Personally I think the traditional Protestant reading of Paul flies completely in the face of Jesus and the Old Testament as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think the churches are more geared to being evangelism centers. But in Acts they were mainly to strengthen believers who evangelized in the street. Lots of entertainment today but little solid teaching.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Basically shows why I no longer identify as an evangelical Christian. I think the state of theology among Americans and American evangelicalism has changed over the decades. I think it has evolved into jigsaw theology.
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
I think it's a bogus study. For example he claims that most "Evangelicals" (A category of which he never actually defines) don't believe in the deity of Christ, but rather that Christ was a created being.

The only thing their "study" does is to discredit their own reputation.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet"!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gordonhooker
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,796.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I think it's a bogus study. For example he claims that most "Evangelicals" (A category of which he never actually defines) don't believe in the deity of Christ, but rather that Christ was a created being.

The only thing their "study" does is to discredit their own reputation.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet"!

^_^ like the folks at Ligonier's are known for producing bogus studies and materials.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Evangelicals:

Are mostly orthodox on key topics, except they show as mostly Arian. I think that question was sort of a trick question. Someone who knows theology would recognize that calling Jesus the first being created is heretical, but I suspect the average person might simply think of that as a reference to preexistence.

About half are inclusivists, which Ligonier considers heretical, but in wider Christianity isn't, and they reject total depravity, which also isn't surprising in a broad sample of Christians. After all, it should be no shock that evangelicals aren't 100% Calvinist.

All adults is harder to interpret, because it's not clear how many of them should be considered Christian. Still, it's interesting to see nearly unanimous rejection of the idea that any sin deserves damnation. This is a cornerstone of traditional theology. But I've got to wonder what people were thinking. Just as I think evangelicals probably aren't Arian, I wonder if they were thinking about the fact that God forgives us based on Christ, and not rejecting the idea that everyone needs God's grace.

It's not so surprising to see most Americans saying that theology is personal and not a matter of objective truth. There's enough disagreement among Christians, and a fair amount of suspicion that Christians mix revelation with tradition and culture. Again, there's a question of interpretation. Did people mean that there's no objective truth, or just that it doesn't seem to be so evident when you look at Christian theology?

Their comment on the response to homosexuality isn't surprising, but reflects the editors' theology more than reality. People aren't rejecting Christian ethics for secular ones; they think Ligonier is wrong about what Jesus wants.

It's hard to know how significant the change from 2016 to 18 is. But the pattern is strangely mixed. An increase in exclusivism combined with an increase in rejecting inerrancy. You've got to wonder whether how reliable a comparison between 16 and 18 is.

Summary: not all Americans are Christians, and not all Christians are conservative Calvinists. (And we need to make sure people know what Arianism is, so they don't embarrass themselves on surveys.)
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think it's a bogus study. For example he claims that most "Evangelicals" (A category of which he never actually defines) don't believe in the deity of Christ, but rather that Christ was a created being.

The only thing their "study" does is to discredit their own reputation.

I read your post on the internet, I don't believe you.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet"!

Case in point.

^_^ like the folks at Ligonier's are known for producing bogus studies and materials.

Exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
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

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,796.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Evangelicals:

Are mostly orthodox on key topics, except they show as mostly Arian. I think that question was sort of a trick question. Someone who knows theology would recognize that calling Jesus the first being created is heretical, but I suspect the average person might simply think of that as a reference to preexistence.

About half are inclusivists, which Ligonier considers heretical, but in wider Christianity isn't, and they reject total depravity, which also isn't surprising in a broad sample of Christians. After all, it should be no shock that evangelicals aren't 100% Calvinist.

All adults is harder to interpret, because it's not clear how many of them should be considered Christian. Still, it's interesting to see nearly unanimous rejection of the idea that any sin deserves damnation. This is a cornerstone of traditional theology. But I've got to wonder what people were thinking. Just as I think evangelicals probably aren't Arian, I wonder if they were thinking about the fact that God forgives us based on Christ, and not rejecting the idea that everyone needs God's grace.

It's not so surprising to see most Americans saying that theology is personal and not a matter of objective truth. There's enough disagreement among Christians, and a fair amount of suspicion that Christians mix revelation with tradition and culture. Again, there's a question of interpretation. Did people mean that there's no objective truth, or just that it doesn't seem to be so evident when you look at Christian theology?

Their comment on the response to homosexuality isn't surprising, but reflects the editors' theology more than reality. People aren't rejecting Christian ethics for secular ones; they think Ligonier is wrong about what Jesus wants.

It's hard to know how significant the change from 2016 to 18 is. But the pattern is strangely mixed. An increase in exclusivism combined with an increase in rejecting inerrancy. You've got to wonder whether how reliable a comparison between 16 and 18 is.

Summary: not all Americans are Christians, and not all Christians are conservative Calvinists. (And we need to make sure people know what Arianism is, so they don't embarrass themselves on surveys.)
hedrick is not an orthodox Protestant for the record and he doesn't pretend to be.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
hedrick is not an orthodox Protestant for the record and he doesn't pretend to be.
I'm comparing answers not to my own views but to those typical for American Christians. Ligonier is judging orthodoxy by conservative Calvinist standards.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,796.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Ligonier's is a Reformed ministry promoting covenant theology, orthodox teachings on Christ, etc. That's a give in.

What does an admitted unorthodox Presbyterian view as a standard of 'orthodoxy?'

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm comparing answers not to my own views but to those typical for American Christians. Ligonier is judging orthodoxy by conservative Calvinist standards.

Let's see...

"God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Evangelical respondents in 2016

Evangelical respondents in 2018

Finding:2018: 51% agree vs. 42% disagree
2016: 49% agree vs. 43% disagree"​

Exclusivity of Christ as Savior is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.

"Religious belief is a matter of personal opinion; it is not about objective truth.
All participants in 2018

Finding:60% agree vs. 30% disagree"​

Religious beliefs as objective truths is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.

"The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.
Participants age 18–34 in 2014

Participants age 18–34 in 2016

Participants age 18–34 in 2018

Finding:53% of participants age 18–34 agree, higher than both 2016 (46%) and 2014 (44%)."​

That Scripture does not contain myth accounts is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.

This poll is both enlightening and frightening, disheartening and discouraging.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Exclusivity of Christ as Savior is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.
No it's not, but inclusivism also has a long history. (It was held by Zwingli and Wesley. I've seen argument that Luther at times expressed it, but I'm not quite convinced yet.) It's no secret that about half of Christians today are inclusivist. Since the official Catholic position and the large part of Protestantism that is influenced by Wesley accept inclusivism, it's hard to see how it could be considered heresy.
Religious beliefs as objective truths is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.
If you read my comment, I wonder how people understood the question. I think it's kind of irrational to say that there's no truth. I wondered whether people were actually rejecting the existence of objective truth, or rather were skeptical about how well theology today embodies it.
That Scripture does not contain myth accounts is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.
No, but today this belief is the hallmark of conservative Protestants. Catholics generally accept critical scholarship and so do mainline Protestants. For much of church history, Scriptural interpretation used allegory in a such a way that their hermenuetics was certainly not the same as modern conservative Protestants'. Given this historical background and state today I don't think you can plausibly consider inerrancy as modern conservative Protestants use it as a standard for orthodoxy.

Several of the other issues were, however, specific to Calvinism.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
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

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm still skeptical about a significant difference from 2016 to 2018, but remember that the rise of "nones" is fairly rapid. You'd expect that the view that the Bible is myths would tend to be held by nones, so the change could primarily reflect that.

Incidentally, I would have answered that question "disagree." While I think there's some legendary material in Scripture, "The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true" does not represent my view.

I'm also concerned about the wording of the question "Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature." The expected answer was "disagree." I understand why they expected that. But human nature is good. It still is. It is corrupted. There's a difference between a good nature corrupted and a loss of the image such that our nature is no longer good. "Sins a little" is questionable, but when all you give people is yes or no, they might prefer to affirm that we have a good nature but sin rather than to deny it.

The surveys that I prefer give a range of possible answers rather than picking one "correct" formulation and expecting people to affirm it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat

Though I belong to a mainline church and disagree with a few of the premises, I don't think that the results are that surprising. American evangelicalism has tended to regard doctrine as unimportant for some time now. Most white evangelicals define themselves more by whether they've "accepted Jesus into their heart" and if they support conservative social policies, rather than what doctrines they actually believe and confess.

I'm still skeptical about a significant difference from 2016 to 2018, but remember that the rise of "nones" is fairly rapid. You'd expect that the view that the Bible is myths would tend to be held by nones, so the change could primarily reflect that.

Incidentally, I would have answered that question "disagree." While I think there's some legendary material in Scripture, "The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true" does not represent my view.

I'm also concerned about the wording of the question "Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature." The expected answer was "disagree." I understand why they expected that. But human nature is good. It still is. It is corrupted. There's a difference between a good nature corrupted and a loss of the image such that our nature is no longer good. "Sins a little" is questionable, but when all you give people is yes or no, they might prefer to affirm that we have a good nature but sin rather than to deny it.
it.

That's a good point . Saying human nature itself is sin is actually a heresy in Lutheranism called Flacianism. Original sin is accidental to human nature (to use the categories of Aristotle, which our theology does on this point).

No it's not, but inclusivism also has a long history. (It was held by Zwingli and Wesley. I've seen argument that Luther at times expressed it, but I'm not quite convinced yet.) It's no secret that about half of Christians today are inclusivist.

One of our most conservative, modern systematic theologians in the ELCA, Carl Braaten, leaned towards inclusivism, without explicitly saying we have an explicit promise from God to that effect. So I'd say inclusivism is at least a widespread attitude, if not exactly a doctrine, in many evangelical churches.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not so surprising to see most Americans saying that theology is personal and not a matter of objective truth. There's enough disagreement among Christians, and a fair amount of suspicion that Christians mix revelation with tradition and culture. Again, there's a question of interpretation. Did people mean that there's no objective truth, or just that it doesn't seem to be so evident when you look at Christian theology?
I agree with this response. I think you hit the nail on the head. I also think that is a major issue with most Americans as they think about any issue not just theology. Far to many people emote rather than thinking through logically and objectively and coming to a well thought out response.
As far as the contents of the study I cannot say I am all that surprised. The response that Jesus is a created being does not surprise me either. Christology in the average evangelical mind is frankly a mess. One only needs to read some of the threads and the responses they generate here on CF to realize that Arianism and other christological heresies are alive and well in the 21st century.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,796.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Let's see...

"God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Evangelical respondents in 2016

Evangelical respondents in 2018

Finding:2018: 51% agree vs. 42% disagree
2016: 49% agree vs. 43% disagree"​

Exclusivity of Christ as Savior is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.

"Religious belief is a matter of personal opinion; it is not about objective truth.
All participants in 2018

Finding:60% agree vs. 30% disagree"​

Religious beliefs as objective truths is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.

"The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.
Participants age 18–34 in 2014

Participants age 18–34 in 2016

Participants age 18–34 in 2018

Finding:53% of participants age 18–34 agree, higher than both 2016 (46%) and 2014 (44%)."​

That Scripture does not contain myth accounts is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.

This poll is both enlightening and frightening, disheartening and discouraging.

hedrick is a well respected liberal poster. Much of the respect he has gained is due to his demeanor online, the way he interacts with people and less to do with the content he posts. Set aside the fact that hedrick is a “nice guy” and look at his comments, read what he is message, and understand that he is not orthodox. He is a critic. His only reason for being in this thread is to tare down orthodox Protestantism.

God bless our confessional Lutheran brothers and sisters. Sure, we have some differences, even in the preferred language in which we like to express doctrine, but we still share a large doctrinal foundation. What Liberalism does is deconstruct old, tested, tried and true foundations. It’s not really a form of Christianity but a way of re-creating or building a spirituality using Christian building tools. Just think…20 years ago this study would have caused a lot of concern across denominational lines but today Liberalism has infiltrated deep into the old strongholds of Protestantism and we are dividing, which is a Liberal tactic, into denominations instead of recognizing the enemy within the gates.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
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
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
hedrick is a well respected liberal poster. Much of the respect he has gained is due to his demeanor online, the way he interacts with people and less to do with the content he posts. Set aside the fact that hedrick is a “nice guy” and look at his comments, read what he is message, and understand that he is not orthodox. He is a critic. His only reason for being in this thread is to tare down orthodox Protestantism.

God bless our confessional Lutheran brothers and sisters. Sure, we have some differences, even in the prefer manner we like to express doctrine, but we still share a large doctrinal foundation. What Liberalism does is deconstruct old, tested, tried and true foundations. It’s not really a form of Christianity but a way of re-creating or building a spirituality using Christian building tools. Just think…20 years ago this study would have caused a lot of concern across denominational lines but today Liberalism has infiltrated deep into the old strongholds of Protestantism and we are dividing, which is a Liberal tactic, into denominations instead of recognizing the enemy within the gates.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I was thinking yesterday if we were to look over the old confessions, and Church councils on the subject of human nature...

"Everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.
Evangelical respondents in 2018

Finding:52% of evangelicals agree"

Lutherans, Anglicans, and others would disagree that most people are good by nature. But as you point out liberal theology has infiltrated into old strongholds of Protestantism, replaced by revisionism through deconstructionism.
 
Upvote 0