Christianity and Evangelicalism

[MennoSota]

Here's a good discussion from the White Horse Inn regarding the similarities between liberal Christianity and Evangelical Christianity.
It's a good discussion on why people are leaving evangelical churches and moving toward orthodox churches despite the theological flaws of the orthodox churches. Take a listen before responding.
https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/christianity-evangelicalism/

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here's a good discussion from the White Horse Inn regarding the similarities between liberal Christianity and Evangelical Christianity.
It's a good discussion on why people are leaving evangelical churches and moving toward orthodox churches despite the theological flaws of the orthodox churches. Take a listen before responding.
https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/christianity-evangelicalism/

The major flaws are in Evangelical theologies. But that is obvious enough. That is why evangelicals are leaving evangelicalism and heading for Liturgical worship. But it seems that evangelicals have a taste for Orthodoxy and not for Anglicanism nor for Lutheranism both being liturgical. Some move to Catholicism but not a huge number. Possibly because the Catholic Church is the historic and traditional "enemy" from an evangelical perspective. It only takes a few moments of examining John MacArthur's "grace to you" web site to see how hostile his brand of evangelicalism is towards Catholic teaching. He probably dislikes Orthodoxy too but seems to spend way more time berating Catholicism and Catholic practises. He also seems to dislike Pentecostalism - maybe as much as he dislikes Catholicism.

Such fun

:smirk:

 

[MennoSota]

The major flaws are in Evangelical theologies. But that is obvious enough. That is why evangelicals are leaving evangelicalism and heading for Liturgical worship. But it seems that evangelicals have a taste for Orthodoxy and not for Anglicanism nor for Lutheranism both being liturgical. Some move to Catholicism but not a huge number. Possibly because the Catholic Church is the historic and traditional "enemy" from an evangelical perspective. It only takes a few moment of examining John MacArthur's "grace to you" web site to see how hostile his brand of evangelicalism is towards Catholic teaching. He probably dislikes Orthodoxy too but seems to spend way more time berating Catholicism and Catholic practises. He also seems to dislike Pentecostalism - maybe as much as he dislikes Catholicism.

Such fun

:smirk:

People go to Roman Catholicism because they don't understand theology and the reason for the Reformation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

People go to Roman Catholicism because they don't understand theology and the reason for the Reformation.

I went to Catholicism precisely because I do understand (and did understand at the time) reformed theology (specifically Calvinist theology) and disliked it and chose to reject it was a wicked perversion of Christ's gospel. But I do not worry overly much how people today choose to express their ideas about what Christianity is and ought to be. It's a free country as people say.

:smirk:

 

[MennoSota]

I went to Catholicism precisely because I do understand (and did understand at the time) reformed theology (specifically Calvinist theology) and disliked it and chose to reject it was a wicked perversion of Christ's gospel. But I do not worry overly much how people today choose to express their ideas about what Christianity is and ought to be. It's a free country as people say.

:smirk:

You rejected the Bible for the traditions of a flawed church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You rejected the Bible for the traditions of a flawed church.

No way. I chose to accept all 73 books of the canonical holy scriptures and to reject the eviscerated 66 book perversion in vogue with "reformed christians".

Holy Tradition is accepted by most Christians for very good reasons which Catholic and Orthodox Christians have explained many times - including myself. But you have only 66 books because of your wicked Tradition invented in the sixteenth century by rebellious men who could not even manage to agree on their own theology. So much for their doctrine of the perspicuity of their pared down 66 books.

 

[Albion]

No way. I chose to accept all 73 books of the canonical holy scriptures and to reject the eviscerated 66 book perversion in vogue with "reformed christians".

.

You can say that, but it also is true that you accept as doctrine beliefs that are NOT from the Bible but are instead "Holy Tradition."

That being the case, it's quite reasonable to say that something other than the Bible is accepted. I wouldn't word it as was done, however, and claim that this means to reject the Bible.

 

[MennoSota]

No way. I chose to accept all 73 books of the canonical holy scriptures and to reject the eviscerated 66 book perversion in vogue with "reformed christians".

Holy Tradition is accepted by most Christians for very good reasons which Catholic and Orthodox Christians have explained many times - including myself. But you have only 66 books because of your wicked Tradition invented in the sixteenth century by rebellious men who could not even manage to agree on their own theology. So much for their doctrine of the perspicuity of their pared down 66 books.

Again, you worship the traditions of men and misunderstand the grace of God as shared in scripture. It's your choice to follow a path that uses the Bible to prop up its traditions rather than follow a path where tradition is only of value if God's word is above it. History shows the false path chosen by the church at Rome, which resulted in God's reformation of his church. You have chosen a path that glorifies men rather than God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Albion, I never worry too much about fitting the paradigms of Evangelicalism. I really do not care of holy Tradition is "in the pared down 66 book bible" or not. And when specific doctrines are no in the 73 books holy scriptures is that a reason to reject it? I do not think so. The Creeds are prepared to acknowledge things that are not in the 73 books of holy scripture yet those creeds express that core of Christian belief in opposition to the many heresies that laid claim to being "in the bible".

 

[Imalive]

I went to Catholicism precisely because I do understand (and did understand at the time) reformed theology (specifically Calvinist theology) and disliked it and chose to reject it was a wicked perversion of Christ's gospel. But I do not worry overly much how people today choose to express their ideas about what Christianity is and ought to be. It's a free country as people say.

:smirk:

Oh you should have become an evangelical then.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again, you worship the traditions of men and misunderstand the grace of God as shared in scripture. It's your choice to follow a path that uses the Bible to prop up its traditions rather than follow a path where tradition is only of value if God's word is above it. History shows the false path chosen by the church at Rome, which resulted in God's reformation of his church. You have chosen a path that glorifies men rather than God.

I do not think you know what "worship" means. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is the teaching of Christ. I reject the pared down 66 book derived theologies because they are multiple and contradictory. Tell me this, according to the theology that you accept is it right to teach that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is his blood not symbolic of the Lord's body & blood. Is it right to baptise infants. Is it right to sprinkle or pour water as baptism or must one submerge the candidate?

 

[Imalive]

Is Dutch evangelicalism different or something? I merely see ppl moving from reformed to evangelical. Theres different flavours of it btw. For the reformed we have the dull white evangelical churches w no taste of music, so they can still sit still during worship.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh you should have become an evangelical then.

No thanks

Evangelicalism is way too confusing. How many varieties are there? I knew baptists who insisted that without being submerged one is not baptised and that only people of age (sufficient to know what baptism means) were suitable candidates for baptism. I now Church of Christ people who insist that without baptism no one can be saved. I know Charismatics who insist that unless you speak in tongues you cannot be saved. They all count themselves as "evangelical". You tell me how to decide which is "true".

 

[MennoSota]

I do not think you know what "worship" means. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is the teaching of Christ.

That's a historically false statement.
Nowhere does Christ teach about indulgences. Nowhere does Christ teach that his earthly mom was a perpetual virgin. Nowhere does Christ say salvation can only be maintained by partaking in the eucharist.
No, you don't accept the teaching of Christ. If you did you would be calling for immediate reform for the broken church at Rome.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's a historically false statement.
Nowhere does Christ teach about indulgences. Nowhere does Christ teach that his earthly mom was a perpetual virgin. Nowhere does Christ say salvation can only be maintained by partaking in the eucharist.
No, you don't accept the teaching of Christ. If you did you would be calling for immediate reform for the broken church at Rome.

It's true. Your history is faulty. That is easily fixed but it will require some reading. Have a look at what the early Church Fathers wrote. Not in little selected "sound bite" sized portions. Read a whole book or two by a few of them. Maybe start with saint Augustine's The Trinity. Or you could read further back in the third century or the second. Even the letters of saint Ignatius of Antioch from the late first century and early second would be helpful as a foretaste of Patristics.

 

[Imalive]

No thanks

Evangelicalism is way too confusing. How many varieties are there? I knew baptists who insisted that without being submerged one is not baptised and that only people of age (sufficient to know what baptism means) were suitable candidates for baptism. I now Church of Christ people who insist that without baptism no one can be saved. I know Charismatics who insist that unless you speak in tongues you cannot be saved. They all count themselves as "evangelical". You tell me how to decide which is "true".

Hey we're just as united as the catholics. Just call the whole bunch evangelical and we also have a big church.
I have no idea tbh. When I was just saved I didnt just go to an evangelical church, nooo, it was full gospel. We had the full gospel. All the rest of the churches were half full apparently. LOL that sounded so arrogant. I remember in my first pentecostal church (where they only taught the basics, no good study whatsoever) I was just so enthousiastic. This was it! We had it! I went w school to Taize and a guy, a seeker, asked me how our church was. I said: it's just like the book of Acts.
bahahahaha the book of Acts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hey we're just as united as the catholics. Just call the whole bunch evangelical and we also have a big church.
I have no idea tbh. When I was just saved I didnt just go to an evangelical church, nooo, it was full gospel. We had the full gospel. All the rest of the churches were half full apparently. LOL that sounded so arrogant. I remember in my first pentecostal church (where they only taught the basics, no good study whatsoever) I was just so enthousiastic. This was it! We had it! I went w school to Taize and a guy, a seeker, asked me how our church was. I said: it's just like the book of Acts.
bahahahaha the book of Acts.

Pentecostals like the Acts of the Apostles and some bits in First Corinthians. They spend a lot of time in those books. But even more time in Malachi chapter 3 ... the part about tithes

 

[Albion]

Hey we're just as united as the catholics. Just call the whole bunch evangelical and we also have a big church..

:first: :hiphiphooray: :shake:

 

[Josiah]

My brother goes to a HUGE "Evangelical" church... and yes, while they gain huge numbers of people every week (most from the unchurched), they also loose enormous numbers every week. I mean, how can you have 100 first time local guests every week (and they do)... and not be growing? My bro is an exception; most of their "converts" are non-practicing Christians - many of them new to Christianity. So in that sense, they do ENORMOUS evangelism, bringing LOTS in.
but yes, they don't tend to retain them for long. I SUSPECT (but I don't know) many find it.... empty. I don't know where all their "exits" go.


My Lutheran parish is about half former Catholics. Most of the rest are cradle Lutherans - but there are converts from Baptists and other mainstream churches, but not too many "Evangelicals." One couple, a Hispanic family, were both raised Catholic but returned to Christianity via a big Evangelical church in town and then became Lutherans (that was before I joined this church).


My Catholic parish had a FEW converts from other backgrounds. Amazingly few.... I'd guess 90% or so were cradle Catholics. The "converts" that I knew of were all Protestants or unchurched who married a Catholic and, for the sake of unity and the family, became Catholic (a couple I'm thinking of, very passionately Catholic). There's a popular joke of sorts in Catholicism that Catholic evangelism is all done by good Catholic wives - and I witnessed a lot of truth in that. We had a fairly significant RCIA group every year (that's the official church membership/adult confirmation group in Catholicism - basically adults converting) but it was always spouses. Obviously, this doesn't make up for all the exits: there are some 30 MILLION former Catholics just in the USA right now: Ex-Catholics, people who LEFT the RCC, are the second largest religious group in American - roughly the size of the two largest Protestant denominations combined, almost as large as all of Evangelicalism in America combined, EX-Catholics (like me and a few others here at CH) so I don't think they are flooding there, although I'm sure a few do.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My parish church receives between 3 and 5 former Protestants into communion every year. That's not a lot. But it is a steady stream and now I know around 80 people who have entered the Catholic Church that way. I've sponsored six people from Protestant backgrounds myself. Not one of them converted because of marriage. But I do not doubt that some do.