Hi Janice.

Try these guys they are hyper to absurdityand Fred Phelps would be another.  Here

G’day Robert,

Robert ian Williams - 04 April 2008 09:19 AM

IWhy did I leave Evangelicalism...because it is doctrinal chaos, due to the Unbiblical doctrine of Scripture alone, ignoring the need for an interpretating Church ( !Tim 3 :15)

Can you explain how the verse you have referred to shows that the doctrine of scripture alone is unbiblical? As it reads to me, it shows the complete opposite, for Paul (in the act of writing scripture) is using words to explain to them how they should live and thus become a pillar of truth - it is the words of scripture that show Christians how they should behave so that their gatherings (i.e. the church) can uphold the truth, rather than deny it.

Robert ian Williams - 04 April 2008 09:19 AM

The total lack of historical continuity and consistency throughout the centuries of evangelical doctrine.

But surely the opposite is no guarantee of truth either - continuity of any doctrine is in no way (of itself) indicative of its veracity.

Robert ian Williams - 04 April 2008 09:19 AM

The shock of finding that the first Christians believed doctrines , consistently taught by the Catholic Church, but denied by evangelicals. they can’t agree on key doctrines and consign solemn commands of Jeus Christ to secondaary issues, e.g. baptism ... Indeed denial of baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist are cited by early persons like justin Martyr as prrof of heresy.

The apostle Paul in his letters was constantly arguing against some of the doctrines believed by the first Christians. The “earliness” of a doctrine is no guide to its validity - only its conformity to the mind of God, which authors of scripture such as Paul continually showed was best gleaned from scripture itself.

Cheers,

Timbo

Dannii Willis - 03 April 2008 01:09 AM

What’s a girl like that doing in the catholic church? Although I know an evangelical could fellowship with catholics… however they’d have to have very strong reasons to, more than anyone I know would have. So what sort of values does she consider more important than anyone I know?

Perhaps this needs some clarification.

My friend loves the Lord Jesus, reads her Bible, and accepts the authority of the Bible. As far as I can tell (as far as any man is able to tell!) she is saved. Obviously that is for God to decide, ultimately.

The Catholic Church is what has brought her to this point and taught her what she knows. In fact, it rescued her from a cult/sect she had been involved with. She has no reason to chose the Lutheran church over the Catholic church when the Catholic church has taught her well.

As far as she is concerned, she is able to continue to go to the Catholic church and disagree with certain points of doctrine, in the same way that I go to an Anglican church but disagree with, say, child baptism. (which I do, at present, although I understand arguments for it.)

She considers herself a Christian, first and foremost, who goes to a Catholic church.

(And she hate the fact that when Anglicans hear “Catholic”, they assume “not Christian”.)

But she doesn’t reject all the teachings of the Catholic church. For instance, she accepts the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and to demonstrate it to me, went straight to the Bible and read John 6 with me. Which is what I’d expect an evangelical to do, to prove their point!

There is, in fact, an entire website dedicated to justifying various Catholic doctrines through the Bible.

Which goes as far as saying this: that Catholics are not necessarily unbiblical.

The problem is that you come from a particular doctrinal background, you assume that the Bible supports those doctrines. After all, the JWs believe the Bible supports their ideas. Both arminians and calvinists can have biblical reasons for believing differing viewpoints.

Even when you start from sola scriptura, you have preconceptions. Humans always do. You have no reason to reject them until the Bible starts dismantling those preconceptions. It may end up confirming some of your assumptions about the way the world works!

We need to keep reading the scriptures and letting the scriptures re-write our understanding, with the humility to realise that your viewpoint might be wrong, and encourage our Catholic friends to do the same!

As far as she is concerned, she is able to continue to go to the Catholic church and disagree with certain points of doctrine, in the same way that I go to an Anglican church but disagree with, say, child baptism. (which I do, at present, although I understand arguments for it.)

She considers herself a Christian, first and foremost, who goes to a Catholic church.

some of my closest friends (whilst I was a Missionany) in Tanzania were Catholic, Christian and saved (maybe not in that order!).  They stayed in the Catholic Church because that is where they could effectively reach their Catholic friends. Yes, they disagreed with some of the doctrines.  They also met with evangelicals (us) every week.  (There was a large interdenominational “fellowship” that met every Saturday afternoon for prayer and Bible reading). They were part of the evangelical interdenominational “mission” team and were such faithful and godly representatives of the gospel, I was encouraged and bult up by them, ...and I was the missionary!  It does happen.  In time, she may begin to realise she needs more input and fellowship with like minded people, but I would contiue to pray for her, and the wonderful ministry she has, right where God has planted her.  I wonder whether Ray Galeas book might be helpful for her, as she lives out her Christian life amongst Catholics.
regards
Gill.

Mmmm, I’m not sure I could call someone who believes in Transubstantiation an Evangelical.

Though you’re completely right that we need to be humble and let the Bible shape our beliefs and the way we talk to others about God.

Dannii said

Mmmm, I’m not sure I could call someone who believes in Transubstantiation an Evangelical.

But what about one who believes in Consubstantiation?
Anyway, “Evangelical” is hardly the only equivalence there is to “Christian”.

I don’t really understand Consubstantiation enough to say either way yet.

And that’s true… although I’d say it’s the closest type of Christian to Biblical that there is.