Evangelicalism and American Politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter CTBcin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, peeps, looks like you win.

And you never even got to tell the “30,000 denominations” lie.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I don’t see how she’s a Christian. She doesn’t even know the most elementary doctrines or terminology of Christianity.

Second, is it “effective” and “charitable” of her to attribute all sorts of false beliefs to us? Or to tell us we’re not “evangelical protestants”?
 
I think perhaps your definition of the title Christian is far too narrow…
 
So it seems the Conservatives are willing to stand by Trump on the basis that other presidents have also had moral failings.

It’s good news. If I want to cheat on my wife, I get a pass because other men cheat and it’s ok if they do. Heck, even the president did it. I’d be in good company.
 
I can only tell you what the Bible says. I can’t make you believe it.
 
OK. So, who would you have us vote for? Please tell us what politician you have warming up in the bullpen who’s never sinned.
 
Its simply historical fact. One of the reasons I left Protestantism for Catholicism. Sola Scriptura falls apart when you realize that the “sole authority” doesn’t include a table of contents. Thus you end up with a fallible authority determining a fallible canon of infallible books.
 
HollowMan said:
First, yes, I understand that, as a Catholic, you’re required to believe such things.

Second, it sounds like you believe the Catholic strawman of the Biblical praxis of sola scripture, not what the ECFs and other Christian theologians have understood it to mean.
Click to expand...
Kindly don’t refer to my beliefs as a strawman.
 
Who’s lying about your beliefs? I don’t even know what your beliefs are.

And that’s not an invitations for you to explain because I don’t care what they are.
 
Yes, your comments about the Biblical praxis of sola scriptura show you don’t know.
 
I realize that more traditional Protestants do accept tradition and the witness of the Church to some extent, and thus will fall back on that when it comes to the canon. It doesn’t solve the problem. You still, at the end of the day, end up with a fallible list of infallible books.

Some Protestants take a much more hardline approach. My grandma, who was raised Plymouth Brethren, rejected even the earliest ECFs such as St Ignatius.
 
FYI for anyone who is interested: Some clarification, as I have apparently erred about the Reformed and Presbyterian churches when it comes to their Evangelical status.

The Christian Reformed Church denomination is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals . The Reformed Church in American is not.

The Presbyterian Church in America, the Evangelical Association of Presbyterian Churches, and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church are members of the National Association of Evangelicals. There are other Presbyterian churches that are not.

I realize that there are no doubt churches, fellowships, communities, home churches, and single family churches that would consider themselves Evangelical and that would be considered Evangelical by other Protestant churches, but have chosen not to join the National Association of Evangelicals.

I must confess that I place great stock in membership in the NAE, and I realize that others among you may not really give two hoots about this.
 
It’s a fairly broad spectrum. And the term can have different meanings in different contexts. Evangelical in a Lutheran or Anglican context can still entail belief in the Real Presence and submission to a bishop…while worshipping within a liturgical context.
 
Last edited:
The Atlantic is rather left leaning (though it does have some good articles), please try to look at some articles discussing this from a centrist, conservative, or libertarian perspective.
 
Bebbington’s quadrilateral is the closest thing to a definition of what an Evangelical is. And it’s very vague and could apply to most Christians.
Evangelical is very loose term.
 
Last edited:
I would consider myself conservative, but I don’t know how people can stand behind Trump’s comments anymore. And Evangelicals who cheer him on need to take a close look at what it is exactly they are cheering.

I don’t know what the alternative is. Every Democrat nominee is basically embracing full-on Socialism and late-term abortion.

I can’t help but think we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in today if Mitt Romney had won in 2012.
 
CTBcin said:
The Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists, traditionally have held a similar understanding to Catholics on the nature of baptism. That’s why I assumed you were speaking from an fundamentalist evangelical perspective.
Click to expand...
Presbyterians believe in covenant theology where baptism is a means of grace only for the elect. The non-elect receive only the outward sign.

Methodists do believe in a form of baptismal regeneration for infants, but John Wesley did not teach baptismal regeneration for adults. Historically, Methodists placed a strong emphasis on having a conscious conversion experience of faith and repentance as constituting regeneration. Essentially, baptism does not necessarily correspond to regeneration.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top