When did modernists start teaching easy believism and that Paul preached a different gospel ??

[BornAgain2007]

I am extremely opposed to liberal theology and modernism, which I see being responsible for the devastating decline of the mainline Protestant churches in the US, many of which I greatly loved and many of which still have individual parishes which I do love. Now, that being said, I am confused both by the practices of the Baptist churches you describe before the arrival of the “easy-believest” modernists, and by the practices of the modernists. Specifically:



I don’t see how your county being a “dry county” with “Blue laws”, that is to say, a county without alcohol sales or without stores being open on Sunday, inherently translates to any specific piety. Alcohol consumption is permitted in the New Testament, and is indeed endorsed by our Lord at the Wedding Feast in Cana, where he did miraculously change water into wine, as recorded in the Gospel According to John 2:1-11 . Likewise, Paul directs Timothy in his pastoral epistles to him to “take a little wine for thy stomach.” Scripture clearly takes a disfavorable view of drunkenness, however, but it is widely known that the dry counties in certain US states do have populations of alcoholics who buy their alcohol out of county.

Churches where I grew up were against alcohol and allowed no drinking.



This is actually the traditional and nearly universal Christian belief, which is to say, it is the Holy Spirit which calls us to repentance and enables us to choose to follow Christ (or in the case of Calvinism, God’s grace is irresistible and the elect do not actually exercise free will, but rather the Holy Spirit draws them to God irresistibly). The alternative perspective, Pelagianism, states we can save ourselves, and indeed has been considered a heresy since the fifth century (when Pelagius was opposed by Augustine and John Cassian). However, Pelagianism is not a popular ideology among “easy-believists.” There are very few adherents of the Pelagian heresy around these days; a decade ago, one bishop in the Episcopal Church suggested a rehabilitation of Pelagius, and that idea was not well received, and the Episcopal Church unfortunately has very strong modernist elements. But even they would agree that God’s grace is what enables us to embrace the Christian faith and that is essential to our salvation.



Could you define “Holy Ghost Conviction”? This particular term I have not encountered before - I would assume that if one is “under Holy Ghost Conviction,” that means the Holy Ghost has called them to repentance?

If you have never felt Holy Ghost Conviction you are lost and on your way to hell! You will know when He convicts your heart!



What precisely were you and others doing at the altars each night to be saved? And why are you using altars in the plural? While some churches do have more than one altar, it is unusual for more than one to be used in a service (and against the rules in many denominations). Are you referring to altar calls?

I typed the plural form of altar as a typo, but I have heard people refer to them as plural. Yeah, I am referring to altar calls, but in my church we do not have to wait for the preacher to give the altar call, you go up when God calls you to come and get saved. That is the Holy Ghost Conviction you have never heard of. That is the entire point I am making God must be dealing with you in order for you to be able to get saved.



Unfortunately, there is a trend in Modernism, distantly related I think to Universalism, which is afraid of preaching things about the Christian faith which might potentially frighten people. As an example, the Revised Common Lectionary omits 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 , presumably because the editors thereof do not want to risk discouraging the frequent reception of Holy Communion, but I feel this is misguided, as the entirety of what the Apostle Paul preached concerning the Holy Communion should be heard.

That being said, if you had preachers who were actually frightening the children through their sermons, concerning hellfire and damnation and related topics, I would argue they were doing a poor job of preaching on the subject. A good sermon should stress how our Lord defeated Hell on the cross and how those who believe on him can be saved and receive life everlasting.

If they weren't frightening people they were doing a poor job.



Could you describe these signs and the symbols on them?

The modernists have bumper stickers with representing their interpretation of 1st Corinthians 15. Which they believe is how someone gets saved is believing that summary anytime they want to.



That sounds very strange; I personally have never encountered that, and I am also confused, because earlier you had indicated that your local modernists were claiming that Paul’s teachings were different from those of our Lord, and invalid.



Actually, it has been preached, in its present form, since at least the 16th, 17th or 18th century, when you had the emergence of explicitly Universalist churches, as well as churches which de-emphasized the need for personal repentance, and also, heretical Unitarian churches which denied the deity of our Lord and went on, subsequently, in the 19th century, to deny the need for faith in Jesus Christ in order to receive salvation. Theological modernism I would argue coalesced in the 18th century from various “Enlightenment” ideals and formed over the course of the 19th century into what we know today, which is a theology I do thoroughly reject.

Please cite preachers that preached easy believism prior to the 1980s.

 

[BornAgain2007]

I am extremely opposed to liberal theology and modernism, which I see being responsible for the devastating decline of the mainline Protestant churches in the US, many of which I greatly loved and many of which still have individual parishes which I do love. Now, that being said, I am confused both by the practices of the Baptist churches you describe before the arrival of the “easy-believest” modernists, and by the practices of the modernists. Specifically:



I don’t see how your county being a “dry county” with “Blue laws”, that is to say, a county without alcohol sales or without stores being open on Sunday, inherently translates to any specific piety. Alcohol consumption is permitted in the New Testament, and is indeed endorsed by our Lord at the Wedding Feast in Cana, where he did miraculously change water into wine, as recorded in the Gospel According to John 2:1-11 . Likewise, Paul directs Timothy in his pastoral epistles to him to “take a little wine for thy stomach.” Scripture clearly takes a disfavorable view of drunkenness, however, but it is widely known that the dry counties in certain US states do have populations of alcoholics who buy their alcohol out of county.

Churches where I grew up were against alcohol and allowed no drinking.



This is actually the traditional and nearly universal Christian belief, which is to say, it is the Holy Spirit which calls us to repentance and enables us to choose to follow Christ (or in the case of Calvinism, God’s grace is irresistible and the elect do not actually exercise free will, but rather the Holy Spirit draws them to God irresistibly). The alternative perspective, Pelagianism, states we can save ourselves, and indeed has been considered a heresy since the fifth century (when Pelagius was opposed by Augustine and John Cassian). However, Pelagianism is not a popular ideology among “easy-believists.” There are very few adherents of the Pelagian heresy around these days; a decade ago, one bishop in the Episcopal Church suggested a rehabilitation of Pelagius, and that idea was not well received, and the Episcopal Church unfortunately has very strong modernist elements. But even they would agree that God’s grace is what enables us to embrace the Christian faith and that is essential to our salvation.



Could you define “Holy Ghost Conviction”? This particular term I have not encountered before - I would assume that if one is “under Holy Ghost Conviction,” that means the Holy Ghost has called them to repentance?

If you have never felt Holy Ghost Conviction you are lost and on your way to hell! You will know when He convicts your heart!



What precisely were you and others doing at the altars each night to be saved? And why are you using altars in the plural? While some churches do have more than one altar, it is unusual for more than one to be used in a service (and against the rules in many denominations). Are you referring to altar calls?

I typed the plural form of altar as a typo, but I have heard people refer to them as plural. Yeah, I am referring to altar calls, but in my church we do not have to wait for the preacher to give the altar call, you go up when God calls you to come and get saved. That is the Holy Ghost Conviction you have never heard of. That is the entire point I am making God must be dealing with you in order for you to be able to get saved.



Unfortunately, there is a trend in Modernism, distantly related I think to Universalism, which is afraid of preaching things about the Christian faith which might potentially frighten people. As an example, the Revised Common Lectionary omits 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 , presumably because the editors thereof do not want to risk discouraging the frequent reception of Holy Communion, but I feel this is misguided, as the entirety of what the Apostle Paul preached concerning the Holy Communion should be heard.

That being said, if you had preachers who were actually frightening the children through their sermons, concerning hellfire and damnation and related topics, I would argue they were doing a poor job of preaching on the subject. A good sermon should stress how our Lord defeated Hell on the cross and how those who believe on him can be saved and receive life everlasting.

If they weren't frightening people they were doing a poor job.



Could you describe these signs and the symbols on them?

The modernists have bumper stickers with representing their interpretation of 1st Corinthians 15. Which they believe is how someone gets saved is believing that summary anytime they want to.



That sounds very strange; I personally have never encountered that, and I am also confused, because earlier you had indicated that your local modernists were claiming that Paul’s teachings were different from those of our Lord, and invalid.



Actually, it has been preached, in its present form, since at least the 16th, 17th or 18th century, when you had the emergence of explicitly Universalist churches, as well as churches which de-emphasized the need for personal repentance, and also, heretical Unitarian churches which denied the deity of our Lord and went on, subsequently, in the 19th century, to deny the need for faith in Jesus Christ in order to receive salvation. Theological modernism I would argue coalesced in the 18th century from various “Enlightenment” ideals and formed over the course of the 19th century into what we know today, which is a theology I do thoroughly reject.

 

[BornAgain2007]

Well, I gotta say, I'm not liking your alternative to "easy-believism", it sounds like a whole lot of moralistic and legalistic nonsense.

-CryptoLuthean

Well, that is your choice but I did my part in telling you the truth before you end up in hell with your manmade religion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Churches where I grew up were against alcohol and allowed no drinking.

In the 19th century a social movement known as the Temperance Movement arose in the United States. The movement originally began as part of the early Woman's Suffrage movement as the main concern was that husbands were out getting drunk every night and abandoning their responsibilities toward their wives and children. Prior to this the Wesleyan Tradition (named for John Wesley the father of American Methodism) had a rather negative view on alcohol, and temperance was a major dimension of Wesleyan practice. These two streams, one social and the other religious is what would eventually give rise to the later Temperance Movement ultimately leading to various "blue laws", eventually leading to the passing of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution.

These 19th and early 20th century moralistic impulses haven't gone away even with the end of Prohibition with the passing of the 21st Amendment; which is why a handful of churches remain strongly and moralistically opposed to any consumption of alcohol.

Except, and this is important, Christianity has never prohibited the consuming of alcohol. Our Lord Jesus Christ turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana, our Lord instituted the Sacrament of His Holy Supper with the cup of wine which He calls His own precious blood.

What Christianity has taught is to not allow alcohol to become a destructive vice in one's life. In earlier centuries when more Christians observed the yearly liturgical cycle of fasting, giving up alcohol (with the exception of Holy Communion) during periods of fasting was completely normal. But this was done also by giving up other things such as meat, dairy, eggs, and oil and eating very simple, cheap foods and very little. The point of these times of fasting served as times of repentant reflection on our lives, to deny ourselves certain things not for self-harm, but as ways to discipline our minds and bodies and devote our energies to good works such as helping to provide food for the hungry and giving alms for the poor.

As such self-discipline--temperance--has always been a Christian virtue, extolled since the beginning of the Christian Church. But like the other virtues, it is not about denying the goodness of the body, but about recognizing the ways in which our sinful orientation abuses the natural desires of the body toward selfishness and sin. Virtue is not for the sake of God, rather virtue is for the sake of our neighbor.

Long story short: There's nothing wrong with drinking alcohol responsibly.

If you have never felt Holy Ghost Conviction you are lost and on your way to hell! You will know when He convicts your heart!

You're going to find that outside of your particular church tradition that this simply isn't something other Christians recognize. This isn't our theological and religious language, it's not our theology, because this simply isn't the way we read and understand the Bible.

The language of historic Christianity is, broadly speaking, that the Holy Spirit is present and active in the works of Christian ministry. As such, when St. Paul writes in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by the preaching of the Gospel; that it is the Spirit who is active in giving us faith.

In the Lutheran view we say that faith is "extra nos", Latin for "from outside ourselves", as we read in Ephesians 2:8-9 that we have been saved by grace through faith, and that this isn't of ourselves, but God's gift, not of our own effort, so that no one may boast. Thus the Spirit, operating in Word and Sacrament, grants to us the gift of faith by which He appropriates to us the full and perfect work of Jesus Christ. And thus we are fully justified before God on Christ's account, by His grace alone, through faith, by which we have received the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

This is what Lutherans mean when we say we believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. That God alone is the One who causes our salvation by His own free offering of Himself in love in Christ the Incarnate God-Man who suffered death for our sakes, rising from the dead on the third day, who by this work has destroyed our animosity toward God and thus has Himself become our peace, our peace with God and our peace with one another in the bonds of Christ's holy love.

This also means that, as a Lutheran, I am extremely suspicious of any teaching which would suggest that the locus of God's saving power is found somewhere in myself--that I can look deep into my heart and discover God there. The work of God is not something in myself which God brings out; but something which I altogether lack, and which God gives to me. This precious and gracious work of God is not to be found in invisible things, such as my own feelings, conviction, or even my own reason: these are found instead in the real, tangible, objective, visible, express things of God. Therefore we locate the assurance of our salvation not on our having the right beliefs, the right thoughts, the right feelings, or the right works; but instead the assurance of our salvation is found exclusively in the immutable and unconquerable word of God which we read in the pages of Holy Scripture, which we hear in the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and which we have received in the Holy Sacraments. That is why I can say, confidently, by the grace of God alone and by Christ alone, that I have been baptized, I belong to God; I am baptized, and therefore "If God is for me, who can be against me?" as "There is therefore now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus."

I typed the plural form of altar as a typo, but I have heard people refer to them as plural. Yeah, I am referring to altar calls, but in my church we do not have to wait for the preacher to give the altar call, you go up when God calls you to come and get saved. That is the Holy Ghost Conviction you have never heard of. That is the entire point I am making God must be dealing with you in order for you to be able to get saved.

This particular practice originated in the 19th century among the revivals of Charles Finney, it was originally described as the "anxious bench". This simply isn't part of how Christianity, historically, has done things or believed things. The "altar call" is a highly modernistic innovation.

Rather the historic practice, since the time of the New Testament, is that we preach the Gospel, and God brings those who hear home. Those who came to join the Church were given a period of instruction, known as catechesis, as Christ Himself commanded that His Church "make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and instructing them in all that I have said". So part of the Great Commission was to catechize--instruct--those coming to be disciples. This period of catechism has generally been about a period of about a year, after which those going this instruction would then be fully embraced into the Household of God by receiving Baptism. And so it is here, in the preaching of the word, and in the Sacraments, that God creates and works faith, bringing about regeneration--new birth. And thus the one who is baptized is, as Jesus says in John 3:5 and St. Paul alludes to in Titus 3:5, born again and received into the kingdom of God.

That simply describes the beginning of the Christian journey however, as now, in the new life which one has received in the waters of Baptism, how then ought one live? And that is where Christian discipleship comes in. In now taking what one has received and heard, and live it in the midst of the world. Not everyone is going to be a pastor, not everyone is going to be an evangelist, or a missionary, or some great big theologian. But everyone does have their vocation--and every vocation of life is a ministry--from changing unjust laws to changing diapers to changing tires. The Christian life of discipleship is found in the work we do in loving our neighbor.

If they weren't frightening people they were doing a poor job

Such is utterly foreign to the right and faithful preaching of the Holy Gospel. It is altogether true that the dread fear of the Law is something to be taken seriously; after all the Commandment of God is the hammer of God's righteousness against us in our sin.

But nobody has ever been saved by the preaching of the Law.

Indeed, the preaching of the Law can't save anyone. The preaching of the Law can condemn our sin, the preaching of the Law can provoke our conscience, the preaching of the Law drives us to our knees in repentance. But it can never save us. Once we have fallen to our knees, with grief-stricken tears over our failures to abide in God's love toward others, the Law has done its job--and if left there leaves us in a deep bottomless well of faithless and hopeless despair.

So the preaching of the Law is never going to save anyone. Only the preaching of the Holy and precious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ can deliver salvation to the broken and downtrodden, to the thankless and the wicked, to the wretches of the world--in other words, you and me.

And what is His Gospel? That Christ came to save sinners, you and me. And that He did, in fact, save sinners, you and me. That He has accomplished that work, once and for all, by His own offering of Himself in the death of the cross, and by His victorious conquest over sin, death, hell, and the devil. And now we, by the superabundant kindness of God, have life with God, in Christ, by the power of the Spirit. Living in the power of the resurrection by the gift of faith granted to us by God, living in the hope of the resurrection when at long last Christ our Lord shall return in glory as judge of the living and the dead, God renders all things new--world without end. And, between then and now, to be the very aroma of Christ in the world, by abiding in Him, and walking humbly in relationship to our neighbor and indeed all of God's creatures. That is God's work of sanctification in our lives.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, that is your choice but I did my part in telling you the truth before you end up in hell with your manmade religion.

How much of the New Testament have you read?