Evangelical Christians closer to authentic Christianity?

[fallingblood]

The idea that traditional Christianity is somehow better or closer to the authentic teachings of Jesus, compared to evangelical Christianity, has come up in various discussions recently.

I propose evangelical Christianity may be a little closer though to the original Jesus movement or the earlier forms of Christianity. There are a few reasons for this proposal.

The first being that Evangelical Christians have a tendency to take the Bible more literally. Granted now that the Jesus movement, and the earliest forms of Christianity did not have the Bible, they did have pieces of work that they believed to be scripture. Jesus, from what we can get, held that scripture was to be read literally. More so though, the writers of the Bible seemed to take scripture as literal.

This can be seen in the Gospels accounts for example. When scripture is quoted, it is taken literally as if it had to have happened. This is even true when scripture is read incorrectly. The best example is the instance in the birth narratives in which it is claimed that scripture said that the a child would be born of a virgin. The actual scripture states that a child was to be born of a young woman, yet was later mistranslated. The fact that this mistranslation is considered literal though gives credence to the fact that the early Christians were literalists.

Second, the form of baptism that is used. Evangelical Christianity does a water baptism when the person feels a calling. The idea is based on the way in which Jesus was baptized before his ministry. Evangelical Christianity also believes in baptism of the holy spirit, as attested in the book of Acts when the Holy Spirit descends on the disciples. In addition, Evangelical Christianity also believes in the gifts of the spirit, such as the gift of speaking in tongues. All of these traits are held by Evangelical Christianity based off of what the earliest Christians supposedly had believed. This is in direct contrast with "traditional" Christianity which holds baby baptisms without consent from the person, and does not accept the gift of the spirits.

Third, Evangelical submits to the idea of faith healing by the act of laying of the hands on the sick, as Jesus is said to have done. The faith healing, and demon exorcisms as practiced by Evangelical Christianity are reflective of what Jesus taught; that all of his followers had the power to heal and drive out spirits in the name of Jesus. As opposed to the idea of traditional Christianity which rely on holy leaders or specially appointed individuals.

These are just three points, but there are quite a few more (for the sake of ease, I tried to keep it short). Now, I wouldn't go as far as to state that Evangelical Christianity is identical to the early Christian movement, but I would suggest that it is closer than traditional Christianity.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

I am in agreement with this for the most part.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Absolutely not. No one is.

 

[freeman2008]

I think all your points are disputable only to those who are weak in the faith and seek to justify themselves by good works.

On your first point, the fact Jesus was born of a virgin is at the heart of what sets his death apart from others. He was not born in sin as the rest of us. Yet he he still died for the sins we are guilty of. His blood is our offering, he is the Holy Lamb of God. Disputing this as a matter of translation is undermines the very reason he is who he is.

On your second point, Jesus commanded us to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Since his teachings represent the NEW covenant, this is correct.

On your third point, again, a disputable matter that causes disharmony in the body of Christ. We are all judged by good works, but only by faith are we justified, it is credited to us as righteousness. Jesus said "Though you cast out demons in my name, I know you not." Because what is not done out of love for the Father, is against him. It is a matter for prayer and good judgment. If you cast out a demon, and he returns to is evil ways and seven more enter in, have you really done him any favors? Or did you intend to glorify yourself in the eyes of men? Did doing so bring him to the body of Christ?

Jesus said, "Do not judge by mere appearances, but make a right judgment." He also said, "Blessed are those who gather, and not scatter."
Forgive these disputable matters and seek what is right for God. This is the work he sent us to do.

 

[fallingblood]

On your first point, the fact Jesus was born of a virgin is at the heart of what sets his death apart from others. He was not born in sin as the rest of us. Yet he he still died for the sins we are guilty of. His blood is our offering, he is the Holy Lamb of God. Disputing this as a matter of translation is undermines the very reason he is who he is.

I think the translation is very important here. Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to fulfill scripture. The scripture he is referring to was not fulfilled simply because the version he had was a mistranslation.

I don't think he needs to be born of a virgin. I think it was simply added as it was a common act to include a miraculous birth for people who lived an important life. Also, another problem arises anyway, with the story of Jesus having to be baptized by John the Baptist.

Personally, I just can't take the virgin birth as a historical event unless I would accept the various other virgin or miraculous births to be historical. I don't see a reason to pick and choose.




Just as a side note. I'm not trying to say that Evangelical Christianity is what the early Christians practiced. However, after hearing quite a few attacks on Evangelical Christianity for getting away from the spirit of the original reformation or that somehow traditional Christianity is closer to what Christianity should be about, I thought I would make a thread showing how Evangelical Christianity may be closer than traditional Christianity. If nothing else, show that it should not simply be dismissed, as it does contain many aspects similar to early Christianity.

 

[Mister Emu]

You have some misunderstandings...

In addition, Evangelical Christianity also believes in the gifts of the spirit, such as the gift of speaking in tongues.

The phenomenon that popularly exists in evangelical circles is not the gift of tongues...

All of these traits are held by Evangelical Christianity based off of what the earliest Christians supposedly had believed. This is in direct contrast with "traditional" Christianity which holds baby baptisms without consent from the person, and does not accept the gift of the spirits.

The Bible records whole households being baptised, it is also compared to circumcision, a practice performed on infants... infant baptism is far from contrasting the early Church.

Secondly, the Church does not reject the gifts of the spirit...

As opposed to the idea of traditional Christianity which rely on holy leaders or specially appointed individuals.

I'm unsure you'd meet a traditional Christian who would say that not every Christian has the theoretical ability to be an instrument of God in healing or exorcism...

 

[logician]

I think Evangelical Christianity is far removed from the early Christian cults, which were very gnostic in nature. If an early Christian walked into about any church today, they would not recognize the religion as it has evolved over time.

 

[EtuMalku]

What the H E double toothpicks are the 'Authentic Teaching of Jesus'?


EM

 

[AxisMundi]

The idea that traditional Christianity is somehow better or closer to the authentic teachings of Jesus, compared to evangelical Christianity, has come up in various discussions recently.

I propose evangelical Christianity may be a little closer though to the original Jesus movement or the earlier forms of Christianity. There are a few reasons for this proposal.

The first being that Evangelical Christians have a tendency to take the Bible more literally. Granted now that the Jesus movement, and the earliest forms of Christianity did not have the Bible, they did have pieces of work that they believed to be scripture. Jesus, from what we can get, held that scripture was to be read literally. More so though, the writers of the Bible seemed to take scripture as literal.

This can be seen in the Gospels accounts for example. When scripture is quoted, it is taken literally as if it had to have happened. This is even true when scripture is read incorrectly. The best example is the instance in the birth narratives in which it is claimed that scripture said that the a child would be born of a virgin. The actual scripture states that a child was to be born of a young woman, yet was later mistranslated. The fact that this mistranslation is considered literal though gives credence to the fact that the early Christians were literalists.

Second, the form of baptism that is used. Evangelical Christianity does a water baptism when the person feels a calling. The idea is based on the way in which Jesus was baptized before his ministry. Evangelical Christianity also believes in baptism of the holy spirit, as attested in the book of Acts when the Holy Spirit descends on the disciples. In addition, Evangelical Christianity also believes in the gifts of the spirit, such as the gift of speaking in tongues. All of these traits are held by Evangelical Christianity based off of what the earliest Christians supposedly had believed. This is in direct contrast with "traditional" Christianity which holds baby baptisms without consent from the person, and does not accept the gift of the spirits.

Third, Evangelical submits to the idea of faith healing by the act of laying of the hands on the sick, as Jesus is said to have done. The faith healing, and demon exorcisms as practiced by Evangelical Christianity are reflective of what Jesus taught; that all of his followers had the power to heal and drive out spirits in the name of Jesus. As opposed to the idea of traditional Christianity which rely on holy leaders or specially appointed individuals.

These are just three points, but there are quite a few more (for the sake of ease, I tried to keep it short). Now, I wouldn't go as far as to state that Evangelical Christianity is identical to the early Christian movement, but I would suggest that it is closer than traditional Christianity.

Evangelical Christians tend to be counted among the most hard core theodemocratic among Christianity, something your Christ figure deemed quite offensive. "Let Cesar's" and all that.

Evangelical Christians push quite hateful and bigoted agendas and laws, against the gay and pagan communities, for example. Again, hate and bigotry are against Christ's teachings.

Evangelical Christians tend to gather around religious leaders, mega-churches and TV preachers, for example. Again, against your Christ's teachings.

And I do not recall seeing anything attributed to your Christ figure involving ignoring plain sciences and taking the entirety of the bible as infallible. Evengelicals are coutned among the most feverent YECers.

To be frank, if Evangelical Christians are "THE" Christians, your religion is found wanting.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood you fail to mention that the Apostles recieved the Holy Spirit from Jesus prior to the book of Acts scenario, and were also baptized by Jesus during his earthly ministry. The book of John says Jesus was baptizing as well in the wilderness. What happened in Acts is the sacrament of Confirmation, "the laying on of hands". Acts also says who can withhold water for baptizing people? As Mr. Emu pointed out, it also says whole households were baptized. This would include infants. Christians could not even agree on what was scripture for nearly 400 years. You have varying lists from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Marcion, etc. Without tradition there would be no NT, the NT, except Paul's epistles, was written after Jesus lived. Also, Jesus told the Apostles to appoint sucessors to preserve the Apostolic teaching. Read below

1Ti 3:1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by "word of mouth" or by letter.

Furthermore, here is evidence that Confession is Biblical

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

So are you seeing church authority yet falling blood?

 

[Smoke]

I really don't understand how anyone can read the New Testament and still claim that Evangelical Christianity is anything like the teachings of Jesus or even Paul. It's a claim so obviously ungrounded in fact that one hardly knows where to begin in responding to it. It's almost as if someone were to seriously propose that Jesus was a spotted salamander.

 

[fallingblood]

Y
The phenomenon that popularly exists in evangelical circles is not the gift of tongues...

How can you say this though? They truly believe that they have received the gift of tongues as described in Acts. This happens once they are baptized in the holy spirit. Whether or not it is authentic, or any different from what the supposed gift of tongues is is besides the point really.

The Bible records whole households being baptised, it is also compared to circumcision, a practice performed on infants... infant baptism is far from contrasting the early Church.

I think that may be a stretch. Baptism may be compared to circumcision, but that does not mean that baptism was performed on children. It was being compared to circumcision because it was a sign of a covenant. To relate that to baby baptism is a far stretch.

Looking at when Jesus was baptized though, and the common tradition of baptism at that time, it was something done later in life.

I'm unsure you'd meet a traditional Christian who would say that not every Christian has the theoretical ability to be an instrument of God in healing or exorcism...

That may be true, but evangelical Christianity is much more open with the idea, and use it quite a bit more. From what I've seen, traditional Christianity, even though they may accept the idea of faith healing, and exorcism, usually leave it more to a priest/minister. Faith healing is definitely something much more common in evangelical Christianity though.

 

[fallingblood]

I think Evangelical Christianity is far removed from the early Christian cults, which were very gnostic in nature. If an early Christian walked into about any church today, they would not recognize the religion as it has evolved over time.

Gnostic according to who? Yes, there were some gnostic sects, but that was not all of Christianity. And I'm speaking more specifically of the Jesus movement (which I have been calling early Christianity, but I explained that more in the first post).

I do agree with the second statement, that if someone of the actual Jesus movement walked into a Christian church, it would not be recognized as the same. However, I propose that they would find more in common with Evangelical Christianity.

 

[fallingblood]

Evangelical Christians push quite hateful and bigoted agendas and laws, against the gay and pagan communities, for example. Again, hate and bigotry are against Christ's teachings.

According to the Gospels, Jesus called the Jews the children of Satan. He attacked other sects that were not his. He attacked the Temple simply because he did not agree with what they were doing. He taught that the Kingdom of God would wipe out the evil Kingdom of Rome. So no, hate and bigotry are not necessarily against Christ's teachings.

Evangelical Christians tend to gather around religious leaders, mega-churches and TV preachers, for example. Again, against your Christ's teachings.

They gathered around Jesus. They also gathered around other church leaders. Such as Paul, who had a wide following, or the disciples. Even James, the brother of Jesus was someone who people gathered around.

And I do not recall seeing anything attributed to your Christ figure involving ignoring plain sciences and taking the entirety of the bible as infallible. Evengelicals are coutned among the most feverent YECers.

The Gospel writers certainly thought that the scripture was supposed to be taken literally, as I pointed out already. It would not be a stretch to say that they also thought that scriptures were infallible. They didn't think this of the Bible, but that was simply because it did not exist. As for ignoring plain science, that is a moot point. Simply because what you are talking about was not an issue during that time, and is relatively new.


To be frank, if Evangelical Christians are "THE" Christians, your religion is found wanting.[/QUOTE] First, it is not my religion. Second, I never stated that the Evangelical Christians are "THE" Christians. Third, my point was that Evangelical Christianity, as was my proposal, is simply closer to the original Jesus movement then traditional Christianity. Not that it is exactly like the original Jesus movement.

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood you fail to mention that the Apostles recieved the Holy Spirit from Jesus prior to the book of Acts scenario, and were also baptized by Jesus during his earthly ministry. The book of John says Jesus was baptizing as well in the wilderness. What happened in Acts is the sacrament of Confirmation, "the laying on of hands". Acts also says who can withhold water for baptizing people? As Mr. Emu pointed out, it also says whole households were baptized. This would include infants. Christians could not even agree on what was scripture for nearly 400 years. You have varying lists from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Marcion, etc. Without tradition there would be no NT, the NT, except Paul's epistles, was written after Jesus lived. Also, Jesus told the Apostles to appoint sucessors to preserve the Apostolic teaching.

One can not reconcile the accounts in Luke/Acts and John. Acts clearly states that the disciples received the Holy Spirit after Jesus left. It is not the same account as seen in John.

Also, there is no evidence that baby baptisms were taking place. Whole households does not instantly mean that they were baptizing babies. Especially when one considers the nature of baptism during that time. More so, looking at even just the baptism of Jesus, Evangelical Christians are much more close.

Jesus never said anything about preserving Apostolic teachings. Even if he did though, no one could logically show that what the church is now teaching is from that succession. The fact is that it is quite different.

Also, scripture during that time was held differently. It doesn't matter that Christianity as a whole couldn't agree on scripture. There was no need. Even the Jews weren't able to agree on their scripture. But it was an accepted fact that there were scripture used by other people.

Tradition though has nothing to do with how the NT came about. Why it came about was that one sect of Christianity, which had evolved already quite a bit from the original Jesus movement, won out and they decided what was scripture and what was not depending on what they wanted and their needs. By the way, Paul was writing a couple of decades after Jesus died.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.

1 Timothy is actually not what the Jesus movement would have taught. Looking at the actual letters of Paul (1 Timothy is not), there would have been no Bishop. There was no reason for one, or even a well structured church organization, as the end was suppose to be very near.

So the idea of a Bishop is not in gear with the Jesus movement. It also does not go well with what Paul actually taught. It was an invention after the disciples and original apostles were dead.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by "word of mouth" or by letter.

This really doesn't support your point. The second implies that the traditions were at some time written down. Also, Evangelical Christians also follow traditions.

I'm actually not even sure how to fully reply to those two verses as I'm not sure what they are trying to show.

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

This never mentions confessions as in the sense of the modern day confessionals. It doesn't tell the disciples to go out and get confessions. I would have to say it is quite a stretch to say that is support of the modern day confessional.

Act 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

First, the word bishop here does not refer to the modern sense of the word. It is more correctly seen as overseer, or shepherd, of a smaller group. The verses are actually talking specifically about some elders in the church, or group. So it really is not like a Bishop of today. Also, the translation to the word bishop also is not the more accurate.

So are you seeing church authority yet falling blood?

Not really. The idea of Church authority did not really become something until after Paul and the disciples were dead. With Paul, the Church was not some large organization as it is today. It was operated out of houses. It had elders in the way that the Jews also had, older members of a congregation. The idea of church authority, as seen today, did not exist until more into the second and third century.

 

[fallingblood]

I really don't understand how anyone can read the New Testament and still claim that Evangelical Christianity is anything like the teachings of Jesus or even Paul. It's a claim so obviously ungrounded in fact that one hardly knows where to begin in responding to it. It's almost as if someone were to seriously propose that Jesus was a spotted salamander.

Evangelical Christianity may not be exactly like the teachings of Jesus or Paul, but traditional Christianity isn't either.

My proposal is not that Evangelical Christianity is exactly like, or even closely similar to the original Jesus movement. My proposal is that it may be closer to the fact than traditional Christianity. My intention though is more to show that there is no reason to assume that traditional Christianity is some how superior, or even what the original Jesus movement was truly about.

The reason for this is because on many occasions I've seen Evangelical Christianity dismissed based on the idea that traditional Christianity is something Jesus would have taught. I doubt that, and because Evangelical Christianity is more radical, I think it would be something more in line with what Jesus would have taught.

 

[AxisMundi]

According to the Gospels, Jesus called the Jews the children of Satan. He attacked other sects that were not his. He attacked the Temple simply because he did not agree with what they were doing. He taught that the Kingdom of God would wipe out the evil Kingdom of Rome. So no, hate and bigotry are not necessarily against Christ's teachings.

Christ was a Jew, so I hardly think he is going to call himself a child of Satan. Being anti-establishment isn't hateful. And Rome were the Jews oppressors, again, hardly hateful to hope one's deity nukes one's oppressor.

They gathered around Jesus. They also gathered around other church leaders. Such as Paul, who had a wide following, or the disciples. Even James, the brother of Jesus was someone who people gathered around.

You stated, in effect, that Evangelicals did not do this, and now you state that it's OK since they did it around Paul and Christ.

The Gospel writers certainly thought that the scripture was supposed to be taken literally, as I pointed out already. It would not be a stretch to say that they also thought that scriptures were infallible. They didn't think this of the Bible, but that was simply because it did not exist. As for ignoring plain science, that is a moot point. Simply because what you are talking about was not an issue during that time, and is relatively new.

The scriptures attempt to claim they are the word of God. Therefor, to be taken literally, the scriptures have to be taken as infallible as well.

And whether "new" or not, science proves each and every fable and myth in Genesis false (and msot elsewhere as well), which destroys any credibility in the wentire scripture and especially in any ultimate authority of Jehovah.

It is claimed that Jehovah, as a demi-urge, is omni-sentient. Seems to me that "new" shouldn't be an issue at all and that said "infallable" scriptures would reflect modern knowledge.

First, it is not my religion. Second, I never stated that the Evangelical Christians are "THE" Christians. Third, my point was that Evangelical Christianity, as was my proposal, is simply closer to the original Jesus movement then traditional Christianity. Not that it is exactly like the original Jesus movement.

First, you sure are promoting it like it's your religion. Second, I merely paraphrased the atmosphere you are building in this thread, that Evangelical Christianity is the best thing since sliced bread.

And had to reply to these as well...

How can you say this though? They truly believe that they have received the gift of tongues as described in Acts. This happens once they are baptized in the holy spirit. Whether or not it is authentic, or any different from what the supposed gift of tongues is is besides the point really.

Makes the world of difference. "Faking it" doesn't make it real, nor does it vindicate one's religion, and it certainly degrades the religion as well. Recordings of people "speaking in tongues" have been examined by linguistic experts and are found to be mere unstructured gibberish.

That may be true, but evangelical Christianity is much more open with the idea, and use it quite a bit more. From what I've seen, traditional Christianity, even though they may accept the idea of faith healing, and exorcism, usually leave it more to a priest/minister. Faith healing is definitely something much more common in evangelical Christianity though.

You mean like Popov and others? Really, one doesn't see average Joe Evangelical going about faith healing or exorcising. One sees cretins like Popov and other such "ministers".

Just out of curiosity, do you have something against the Catholics?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Sure falling blood you can dismiss those so clear verses I pointed out if you want to, which I notice you didn't even address the one about the Church being the pillar and ground of truth. You said evangelicals have traditions. Sure they do, but is it the tradition of the Apostles handed on through hand to hand sucession that was to preserve the Apostolic preaching? Is it Apostolic Sucession?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These are just three points, but there are quite a few more (for the sake of ease, I tried to keep it short). Now, I wouldn't go as far as to state that Evangelical Christianity is identical to the early Christian movement, but I would suggest that it is closer than traditional Christianity.

IMO, in all your points, you completely ignore "tradition" in favour of a position that relies on the Bible alone.

It may very well be that Evangelical Christianity is closer to a "pure" Sola Scriptura position than "traditional" Christian denominations are. However, this avoids one of the big questions that divides the two groups: which is (to use your term) more "authentically" Christian? Sola Scriptura, or holding both Scripture and Holy Tradition up as equal sources of authoritative teaching?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Right 9-10th's Penguin. Traditional Christianity holds that the holy tradition has indeed been transmitted through hand to hand sucession that can historically be traced to the Apostles, and that scripture and tradition emminate from one divine wellspring of truth.