- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,337
- 3,604
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
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.
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 link at the bottom of the page gives further breakdowns of who was polled.
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"!
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.
hedrick is not an orthodox Protestant for the record and he doesn't pretend to be.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.)
I'm comparing answers not to my own views but to those typical for American Christians. Ligonier is judging orthodoxy by conservative Calvinist standards.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.
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.Exclusivity of Christ as Savior 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.Religious beliefs as objective truths 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.That Scripture does not contain myth accounts is not an invention of conservative Calvinists.
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.
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.
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.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?
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 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