Why Evangelicalism is Still the Best Option

mbaker,

I am absolutely game for questions. You can visit my blog and we can communicate via email from there.

I was in a Charismatic denom for 22 years and then was in Calvinism for 4 years. So I have been around Evangelia and I have seen a few things.

Evangelicalism is what it is today – chaotic, because it’s base is founded on Pietism/Revivalism that separates the HS from the Word and Sacrament. In other words, they have deviated from the original Evangelicals, and misunderstood sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia. They deviated from the objective promises of God and have gone chasing after mystical experiences i.,e subjectivism.

This was ironed before already inside Lutheranism.

So your questions are welcome.
LPC

“Re: finding discussions of the differences between Catholics and Orthodox, you can probably find such information via Google.”

Thanks a lot EricW for the informative links. I’ve visited the last link and I find it very interesting as it is very similar to the Catechism of the Catholic Church format. Meanwhile, I’m also looking for an authoritative source information about the Orthodox (Eastern) Church (OEC)’s Faith. Something that I could hold on to and definitely say that is believe by all OEC.

Those articles you pointed out seems to give differences but the one that I find seem to hinge on Papacy and the Filoque clause. While the second is minor as the both “sides” seem to emphasize a different part of the Truth; the main issue is on authority. The main contention is on the “primacy” of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) and his grace of Infallibility ex cathedra (final authority/arbiter over issues over bishops). Unless the OEC holds a General Council of their own, this will remain an open issue for OEC as to who will eventually “rise up and speak” then make “the multitude silent,” listening to other corroborative testaments (Acts 15:7-12).

For me, the fact that there is no one to turn to for authoritative and final decisions when “doctrinal issues” arise in OEC’s, OEC’s are not different from Protestant churches.

Even so, I still believe that eventually, the Holy Spirit will convince the world that there will eventually be “one in all.”

—
“so that all may be one”

“I am no longer Orthodox, nor do I currently hold to the Catholic or Orthodox teaching of the Eucharist.”

Is this not what it means to be “evangelical”? You essentially create your own religion.

Is this not what it means to be “evangelical”? You essentially create your own religion.

No, sir/ma’am. That is what the Orthodox and Catholic churches did when they misunderstood and mistaught what Jesus said and meant and taught at His Last Supper. 🙂

To be “Evangelical” is not a matter of creating one’s own religion. It means to have had one’s life impacted and changed by the Euaggelion of Jesus Christ and to live and work so that it might impact others’ lives as well. Catholics and Orthodox Christians, too, are “Evangelical” if they live their lives for the Good News. 😀

“To be “Evangelical” is not a matter of creating one’s own religion. It means to have had one’s life impacted and changed by the Euaggelion of Jesus Christ and to live and work so that it might impact others’ lives as well.”

So, are you simply “evangelical” or are you also a member of a religion/Church? I suppose there are many people who claim to have the same experience you claim for yourself without even necessarily being Christian.

If you claim Christianity for yourself, how did you come to know what it means to be Christian?

If you claim the bible, on whose authority do you take the bible to be true? Is it on your own authority or someone else’s?

If it is your own authority, have you also examined all the religions of the world, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc, and following your own analysis, decided you’ve found the brand of Christianity that matched what you found?

To summarize, it takes Jesus assuming the form of man, living, dying, buried and resurrecting, and commissioning Peter as head of newly founded community, to found a Church. Waking up 1500 years later and deciding you are founding a “Church” will not do it, no matter how clever or audacious you may be, hence communities of the Reformation are not properly speaking, Churches. There are not two Christian Churches on earth; there is only one and it is not invisible.

So, are you simply “evangelical” or are you also a member of a religion/Church? I suppose there are many people who claim to have the same experience you claim for yourself without even necessarily being Christian.

To summarize, it takes Jesus assuming the form of man, living, dying, buried and resurrecting, and commissioning Peter as head of newly founded community, to found a Church. Waking up 1500 years later and deciding you are founding a “Church” will not do it, no matter how clever or audacious you may be, hence communities of the Reformation are not properly speaking, Churches. There are not two Christian Churches on earth; there is only one and it is not invisible.

Whatever, doozie.

To summarize: You and other RC’s read and believe and encounter history and Scripture and the Lord as you do, and I and other non-RC’s read and believe and encounter history and Scripture and the Lord as we do. You like Rome’s Kool-Aid, that’s fine. Enjoy! Pax.

Hi All, peace of the Lord!

Rome does not force everyone to drink the “Kool-Aid” (whatever that means). Just like any (or at least most) credal faith, adherence to the Faith should not be forced, either be it by family or by friends. Adherence to the Faith is something that we grow into. Something that at one point in our lives, we decide to abide by it and by the same Faith, live with Hope of being within the Truth as revealed once and for all by the Lord — the Logos made Flesh (at least within the Christian Faith).

What is in the name? Evangelical or Bible-based, Protestant, Lutheran or Calvinist, Roman or Latin, Orthodox Christian… All are the same as long as everyone claims that Jesus is God and that He is OT is pointing at Him as the Messiah — the definitive Noah, Moses, and Jonah. That Jesus, during the last Passover, was (and still is) the Lamb of God (cf. Revelation to John).

Thus the Christian Faith is common in the belief that the Lord God is the God of history, be it a country/nation or even in the personal level (read: God even knows each of our names). Hence, however different our individual paths are, am sure God is calling our names and has set unique paths for each of us. It is for each of us to respond to that calling and be open to his guidance, without hindering it either our stubborness or pride to see the truth.

As I always say: “I would rather be blind by looking at the Truth, rather than being blind by refusing to look at It.”

Somewhere, somebody said: “To know the truth, follow the lies.” (X-Files).

Pray and He will surely lead us There. May Jesus forgive us all, may He lead us all to heaven and may He have mercy especially to those who need most.

—
“so that all may be one.”

Rome does not force everyone to drink the “Kool-Aid” (whatever that means).

geekborj:

Well, it was actually “Flavor Aid,” but the popular myth is that it was Kool-Aid. Sean Hannity regularly uses the term “Kool-Aid” re: such things on his radio show. 🙂

“What is in the name? Evangelical or Bible-based, Protestant, Lutheran or Calvinist, Roman or Latin, Orthodox Christian… All are the same as long as everyone claims that Jesus is God and that He is OT is pointing at Him as the Messiah — the definitive Noah, Moses, and Jonah.”

False, false, and false! There is a major dividing line between God’s action and man’s caricature of the same action. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and Protestant attempt to ridicule what God has establish by attempting to erect counterfeit “Churches” in Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, or any other ism, is purely foolish.

I listened to James White’s “A brief Introduction to the Reformation” this morning. Somewhere in there he claimed that Luther did not intend to found a Church. This is a claim made by many Protestants and somehow they think it is an impressive one. What it really means is that Protestantism was founded accidentally by a man whose mental condition and moral state have been the subject of great controversies.

There are people and blog sites who spend considerable amount of energy defending Luther one charge after another, including Luther’s promotion of adultery; his permission of polygamy; his abominable description of the Jews; his support for murdering “frigid and frail and women”; and his audacious command to “sin boldly”, among many other charges. One asks, how many match sticks does it take to burn down this figure of Luther? You look at the man and you wonder if he is qualified to be any body’s God parent, let alone the founder of a religious system that wants to claim some sort of authenticity? Yet there are men with intelligence who are willing to defend the man as having recovered the true gospel, although they are not willing to be Lutheran themselves.

For any of Protestantism to be true, the history of salvation has to be repeated, beginning from the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, the selection of the apostles (with Luther at the head), the death, burial, resurrection, and all. It cost God too much to found his Church – the Catholic Church and no man, if he has the fear of God in him, will entertain the temptation create a rival movement in opposition to what God already established. In a sense, the unpardonable sin is the sin of Luther and his cohorts.

Again, some say that Luther recovered the gospel lost or corrupted by the “papists”. While they deny infallibility to the popes they are more than willing to assert that Luther unfailingly (infallibly) recovered the true gospel but if you ask them if they are Lutheran, more than likely they will say, no. If Luther recovered the true gospel why are majority of Protestants, if not all of them, not Lutherans?

Again, it cost God too much that if any man or woman has the fear of God in him or her, an attempt to erect a rival institution in opposition to the Church of Christ would never be contemplated. This sort of…

Pure “evangelicanism” is not the best option. It could be everybody’s best choice but not the best option as laid down by God. It will be His Will done.

Let me clarify my point on “What is in a name?”:

1. I’m not promoting that “there is no true visible church.” What I meant here is that God allows such human actions because He can bring more good out of it. As anyone can see, there are a lot of people being brought to the true Faith because of these “deviations.” Jesus himself prophesied that everyone in the Flock will be tested and that many wolves in sheep’s clothing will come, many false teachers will appear. Nevertheless, those who have willed to find the true shepherd will find it. Knock and the door will be opened.

2. Each path is unique that somehow many will go astray from the straight line but in the end, converge to the same point (or circle). Remember, many birds will rest on the big tree (). But in the end, there will always be ONE big tree. How many have returned to the one Fold because of educated decisions? How many have turned away from the same because of hate and pride?

3. One should not reinvent the Wheel. What God has founded, no one can found again (1 Cor 3:11). There is only one Cornerstone. But there is only one first stone founded on it — the Kepha/Rock. Luther has never wanted to be separated from the Church, until his pride overwhelm him wanting to be his own pope. He was given a general council (Trent), whose canons he rejected. Indeed, just follow the “lies.” Dig deeper about your respective Faith. Seek and you will find. Do not hide the Talents, gamble it, test everything.

4. “Kool Aid” or “Flavor Aid” is an allusion of what happened several years ago, hence: “Don’t drink the juice.” This is never going to happen in the one holy apostolic and universal Church (visible Church, the body of Christ animated by His Spirit). “Kool/Flavor Aid” is an allusion to lies. If you are after the truth, find out more about the alleged lies. Who founded your church? For what reasons are your church founded? What keeps its existence? What will happen to your church if 90% of the members become “apostate”? What are the basis of all those “rituals”? How coherent are the “ideas” about God and His divine Plan for Salvation?

In the end, I say: “Look at the Idea, not the people who talk about It.” Do you reject something just because the Roman Catholic Church says it? You might not believe me just because I am a Catholic guy. Indeed, some have ears but do not hear; others hear but do not listen.

The true Church is a persecuted Church. The word “temptation” does not bear a deep meaning without the Church.

If anyone has ears, listen to what the Spirit has to say. (Rev 2-3)

How persecuted is the Catholic Church? It has one billion members, and is the largest church in the world. It is not a persecuted minority.

The word persecuted is not about being in minority. It is about how the ideals and the Faith itself is challenged. It is how the members are being challenged to live their faith (Catholic practices, traditions[small ‘t’], and Traditions[big ‘T’ being Mass, Confession, etc.]) freely and without any hindrance (either by law within the community, or by social pressure). It is also how media, culture, and political communities attack or belittle the Catholic beliefs including the Catholic’s leaders the Pope and the bishops.

As examples: There are a hundreds of jokes about the Catholic practices. Media always try to find flaw(s) on the statements of the Pope and even their respective local bishop conferences. Every political entity cries against the Church whenever the Church leaders issue defense against the State’s “rape” of human dignity.

Many Credal churches and religious organizations exist today as if the main essence is just opposing the Catholic Faith, if not attacking it (being anti-catholic in nature).

[Pure] Evangelism (if any exists), based on the article above, will never be persecuted because its members are free to CHANGE their practices as they please to remove any pressure from any entity (e.g. law) or peers. This is very unlike a “dogmatic” church which cannot change the revealed faith but only develop and elaborate.

I have read this entire forum today and found it very interesting and I learned much reading it. I am a reformed protestant who also is an ex roman catholic so I would like to comment on a few comments made in the forum for one who has been in both camps.

The following qre the qoutes and then my response.
#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:51 pm #
Re post 26

I would also disagree that those Catholics who don’t agree with the whole enchilada of the catechism are not really Catholic. Anyone who takes communion in a Catholic church is and remains a real Catholic despite any divergences of belief or practice.

I agree with Michael and not John

C Michael Patton on 02 Sep 2009 at 12:05 pm #
J,
By definition, Cafeteria Catholics are not REALLY Catholics. Let’s give Catholicism the benefit there. Just like the Jesus Seminar is not REALLY Protestant (in the historic sense).

I totally agree with Michael.

#John1453 on 02 Sep 2009 at 6:26 pm #
Still, I guess the evangelicals are a bit better because we’ll at least allow a Catholic to take communion in church (even though a Catholic is not supposed to take communion anywhere except in a Catholic church). I agree with John here.

However when I started visiting Protestant denominations and participating in the Lords Supper in the Protestant churches who welcomed me…..I was technically ex communicated from the roman catholic church.

geekborj on 13 Sep 2009 at 4:12 pm #
Somewhere, somebody said: “To know the truth, follow the lies.” (X-Files). I will not argue here at all .. Good statement …I believe the devil is the master of deceit and he will make a truth look like a lie and the lie look like a truth.

I strongly disagree with dozie however on the following statement.
Dozie on 13 Sep 2009 at 7:13 pm #
For any of Protestantism to be true, the history of salvation has to be repeated, beginning from the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation, the selection of the apostles (with Luther at the head), the death, burial, resurrection, and all. It cost God too much to found his Church – the Catholic Church and no man, if he has the fear of God in him, will entertain the temptation create a rival movement in opposition to what God already established. In a sense, the unpardonable sin is the sin of Luther and his cohorts.

I am an adult convert to Presbyterianism as well as Protestantism. I was a
roman catholic until I was and became interested in the study of the Protestant
Reformation and the different branches of Protestantism about 3 years ago.

I now believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation i.e. the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone.

I studied the Protestant Reformation with fervor and I became convinced and a
believer in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. When I accepted the
authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and realized that salvation is
by grace alone could no longer say I was a Roman Catholic

I became a Presbyterian because I believe that Calvin restored the church to
its pure and uncorrupted form.

I will answer by saying I was a cafeteria roman catholic and discovered that Once God removes the veil from the eyes of the Roman Catholic and gives him/her eyes to see and ears to hear and new heart of trust in the real grace of God there is no more Roman Catholicism left in the soul. Hence, to be born again by the Spirit puts an end forever to Roman Catholicism. I really did not leave the roman catholic religion I was no longer a roman catholic. One cannot believe in salvation through the Roman Catholic system of sacraments, etc., and salvation by grace through faith alone at the same time. It is one or the other. I am a Reformed Protestant because I believe that all Christians are catholic, and I made an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian Protestant because I chose the other as the truth once I was born again. I believe it was Rome that moved away from the true church Christ founded. I also did not become a Lutheran because Luther only trimmed the branches of the corrupted tree of roman Catholicism, Calvin , Knox and Zwingli and the Reformed branch of Protestantism restored the church to its true gospel and its true form that Christ intended.

In faith,
Dudley

Dudley,

Some things I can agree with you on.

“I also did not become a Lutheran because Luther only trimmed the branches of the corrupted tree of roman Catholicism, Calvin , Knox and Zwingli and the Reformed branch of Protestantism restored the church to its true gospel and its true form that Christ intended.”

Although I am not a Lutheran, it would be most helpful if you elaborated on that. I have heard from more than a few than a few Lutheran folks that they believe they have the best take on true evangelicalism, but never specifically.

Why, and where are the differences?

To mbaker: It was initially the Lords Supper and interest in the sacraments and worship which led me to become a reformed Protestant. Later on I became more of a Reformed Evangelical protestant and became very much less sacramental altogether. I now also even renounce the rc mass as an abomination and have become more Baptist in my view of the ordinances which I now prefer to say rather than sacrament.

When I was contemplating becoming a Presbyterian I studied Calvin, Knox and Zwingli in great depth. I have adopted besides the Westminster standards and Confession of faith the teachings on Calvin, Knox and Zwigli and those three Protestant reformers had more of a basis on what I now believe as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I am also now considering a move to the Reformed Baptist fold .

I was an Episcopalian for a while after leaving the roman catholic church. I initially left the roman catholic church in 2006 because the current pope and his policies alienated me from that church. I was still very roman catholic however in theology , sacrament and worship. I joined an Episcopal congregation at the invitation of friends who were Episcopalians. It was high Anglican Episcopal and they even called their Sunday service a mass which was very much similar to the roman liturgy. I knew technically I had become a Protestant by joining their Episcopal church but really did not understand what it meant to be Protestant or what the different Protestant denominations taught in faith.

I began to read and study the Protestant Reformation and also explored other Protestant denominations during my first year as a Protestant after leaving roman catholicism. I did not become a Lutheran for the same reasons Zwingli renounced Luther’s teaching on the sacrament. I did attend services with a Methodist congregation for a brief period while exploring Protestantism. I was invited to the Lords Supper with them on one occasion, they open their table to all believers even if not yet officially a member of the Methodist church. I did like and think their position and teaching while very Protestant theologically on the Lords Supper that it is primarily a memorial, and not a sacrifice anew as roman catholicism teaches, the service of the Lords supper is a re-representation of the one and only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all who accept him in faith. I also believe that is a fine view for Protestants to take even Reformed Protestants, as long as we see it as symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice and not the sacrifice which Rome claims and which I now and Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians reject. I did decide to become a Presbyterian because I believe like Calvin as well as Knox and Zwingli that the Roman church was so corrupted the only way to return to the truth was to renounce her and her pope and its false teachings and return the Gospel and the Church to its true roots and foundation and teachings. I am a Reformed Protestant currently…

. I am a Reformed Protestant currently Presbyterian but also consider being Baptized in the Reformed Baptist fold of Protestantism. I came to believe the only way to return to the truth was to also renounce roman catholicism and all her apostate teachings.

I have found there are only a minority of cradle Protestants who understand that it was the roman catholic papists who broke from the true ‘catholic “church and it was Calvin and the Reformed Protestants who restored the church to its uncorrupted foundation. Papists think it is we, the Reformed Protestants who separated and left the true church.

I came to truly believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel. Roman Catholicism stands against the gospel thus I renounce roman Catholicism! It is why I became a Reformed Protestant. The pope gives teachings which contradict scripture ,it is why I initially left the roman church and at first became an Episcopalian Protestant , I too renounced the pope!

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the reformed Protestantism and belong to a Reformed protestant Church in doctrine and life.

I also concur with Zwingli who believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. The only way to legitimately resolve Roman excess was to reinterpret the nature of the sacraments. Pruning the tree was not enough; pulling the tree up from its roots was the only action that could actually fix the problems. Another reason why I became a reformed protestant and not a Lutheran.

Applying his modified understanding of the sacraments to the Eucharist led Zwingli to affirm its primary purpose as the proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers. Zwingli insisted that the biblical text taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sign, and that to make it something more violated the nature of the sacrament. However, this caution did not keep Zwingli from strongly affirming a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist brought by the “contemplation of faith.”

I also concur with Zwingli that there is no real presence and that Christ becomes present in communion by our common faith. I have also come to the conclusion I like the Baptist position of ordinance because it further removes us from the corruptions of the papist teachings they also call sacrament. Therefore I now think I prefer the Baptist teaching of the two ordinances baptism and the Lords Supper. I am studying the London Baptist confession of faith and I am attending…

I also concur with Zwingli that there is no real presence and that Christ becomes present in communion by our common faith. I have also come to the conclusion I like the Baptist position of ordinance because it further removes us from the corruptions of the papist teachings they also call sacrament. Therefore I now think I prefer the Baptist teaching of the two ordinances baptism and the Lords Supper. I am studying the London Baptist confession of faith and I am attending services in the Reformed Baptist congregation and am in an inquirers class. I am considering being baptized by immersion as a Protestant in the reformed Baptist fold.

In faith,
Dudley

PS Just curious .. Are you also a Reformed Protestant?

To mbaker and all: As a concluding note and clarification on my previous comments I wish to note I agree with Michael on the following points and really all his positions.

But particularly when Michael said:
1.Evangelicals are free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change to an extent that dogmatic traditions are not. Again, this is risky, but, in the end, it does not mandate a certain conclusion and can evaluate the evidence more objectively. In other words, Evangelicals don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but they are instead investigators of truth.

2.Evangelicals, with all their faults, do consistently present the need to have a personal conversion to Christ.

3.The cross is the apex of history, and we must personally have a conversion experience by trusting in Christ as our Lord and Savior. The focus is not the church, liturgy, or traditions.

I agree with Michael especially on the 3rd point I quoted of his. When I was a roman catholic I received communion every Sunday at mass. I also went to communion regularly while and Episcopalian. However when I became a Presbyterian we only celebrated the Lords Supper on the first Sunday of each month. Gradually my view of sacrament or ordinance became more Reformed Protestant and I began to believe that the sacraments , and the church were not the primary mode of salvation as had been ingrained in me as a roman catholic. A personal conversion to Christ and believing we are saved and justified by faith in Him alone. I now center my Christian experience on the Gospel and scripture and less on sacrament or ordinance.
I can say I experienced a “True Protestant Conversion” as John Calvin also described.

As my knowledge of Protestantism expanded I became a Reformed Protestant and an Evangelical because I believe Reformed Evangelical Protestantism is the most purely and authentically Protestant. I believe we are against heresy and popery as a corrupt and evil institution and as Protestants we promote the truth of the true church and Gospel founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Evangelicalism and Reformed Protestantism is a return to the true church. Even the roman church taught me that Presbyterians and Baptists were the furthest from Rome in their theology and teachings , worship and sacrament, ordinances. That is true and the only thing I will now agree with the roman church on. I am a Reformed Protestant because we are further from the corruptions of Rome than any other branch of Protestantism. I am beginning to think that the Reformed Baptist fold of the Reformed branch of Protestantism is even more so Protestant then Presbyterians which again is leading me towards the Reformed Baptist fold. I am and want to be purely most Protestant in my expression of the Christian faith. It is my belief that reformed Protestantism and Protestant Evangelicalism is the true Church and teaches the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

In faith,
Dudley

It’s a shame that sacerdotalism reared its head so early in the history of the church, supplanting the charismatic operation of the Spirit and the church’s growth and instruction through the apostles and prophets and teachers with the resurrection and reinstitution of the Old-Covenant mediatorship of a human priesthood between Christ and His Body.

The problem with Evangelicalism in turn though, is that it doesn’t have very fixed – or reliable – doctrines.

First: 1) gifts of the “spirit” are notortiously subjective. Lots of silly things are allowed in Evangelicalists; believing the the Holy Spirit told us to vote Republican in every election, etc.. Many hear something they think is the Holy Spirit … that is not really so holy after all; but a “false spirit.”

Worse, 2) the very name puts the emphasis on converting – “evangelizing” – others. On vociferously telling everyone what your idea of God is; even as there is no assurance that your personal idea is accurate.

For that reason? My vote is still: no church at all.