Evangelicals without Standards

[Badger]

This is an ugly, ugly thread, and I'm not really interested too much in getting myself, except to point out that many posters here, myself included, take politics way too seriously.  Most Christians don't even care much about politics, and many don't vote at all.  Evangelicals come in all shades and stripes, and the majority of adult, voting-age Evangelicals won't be voting for Trump, even if he gets over 50% head-to-head among those who do plan to vote.  And salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ alone, not who one votes for in this election.  Non-Christians getting to define who is and isn't a Christian is pretty laughable, even if they are correct in pointing out Trump's moral turpitude. Both candidates are terrible as far as I'm concerned, and it hearkens back to what John Calvin said about government:  When God wants to judge a nation, he gives them wicked leaders.  That rings true now more than ever.

Yes RI. Because we know Catholicism is the only "one true church" in Christianity, and the rest of us are heretics.

While true, even heretics can be Christians and saved. We aren't exclusionists.

Yes, Catholics can be saved despite a partially errant salvation doctrine and rejection of monergism.  

God established the local church for believers to worship in .  His will is best glorified in a Reformed church, whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, or non-denominational.  

Not sure who you're referring to there, but I'm a Christian and consider myself to be more so than someone like Fuzzy Bear who exploits women's suffering to advance a political agenda. Anyone who stands for bragging about sexual assault, inciting racial war and religious persecution isn't getting the support of true Christians.

This is a matter of how people weight issues.  Very few Evangelicals would support Trump because of those things you mentioned and most are supporting him because of the views his opponent has on abortion, gay marriage, and other issues.  I am not, but the fact is that abortion is extremely important among Evangelical voters, since most consider it tantamount to the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year.  You seem to imply that only your moral calculus is acceptable for a Christian to hold in determining how to vote this year - other weightings of the issues and considerations automatically discount someone form being a Christian, a notion which I reject.


But my main point is that the determinant of whether someone is a Christian is not whom they vote for, but rather whether or not they have true repentance and faith in Christ, which is demonstrated by fellowship in a Bible-believing church and continued sanctification and growing in knowledge of the Word.  It has nothing to do with how someone votes, as far as the Bible is concerned.  I just find it troubling that you make the determination of judging who is and isn't a "true Christian" based on voting without even acknowledging the fact that no one is righteous apart from God and that our salvation is not about the good works we do, but rather unmerited grace from God.  As such, I find the statement that "no true Christian is a Trump supporter" extremely presumptuous, especially if one does not give a definition of what a Christian is.   Perhaps voting for Trump is a sin (I would argue why someone votes for a person is far more important than for whom, but I digress), but that doesn't change the fact that God does not impute sin to a Christian's account, because it has already been imputed unto Jesus at the cross, so we don't have to bear the punishment we deserve.  "Blessed is the man whom God does not impute sin." 

God, is still speaking.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The world has evolved immensely since Christianity was founded.

Back then, government was an external entity to Christians, as they had no say in how the government was operated. The teachings of Christianity were largely based on the government being the outside force.

Actually, not quite true. Sure, that minor Jewish prophet, Jesus, and his direct followers were outsiders. But teachings of the Christian church, as we know it, were developed substantially later. Nicene Creed - the statement of faith for most Christians today - was adopted in 325, just as Christianity was beginning the process of becoming the Imperial religion. The composition of what Christians consider the canonical New Testament was formalized around the same time, or slightly later, during the fourth century, and for the same reason, really: the government of the Empire needed a well-defined set of beliefs to distinguish "good" loyal Christians from those, whose loyalty was suspect. I could see the argument, of, say Jehovah´s witnesses or Mormons, who have abandoned the Trinitarian orthodoxy established during that period, that their faith was/is not born of symbiosis with the government, but, for most of the rest of those calling themselves Christians, it is simply not a historically correct statement.

While the canonicity of a few minor epistles and Revelations was not universally accepted that early, by the end of the second century the core canon of the four gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles were essentially canon in all but name. While the jargon used to identify certain theological concepts would take another few centuries to develop, that doesn't mean that the belief system wasn't in place. Becoming a State Church under the later days of the Roman Empire did not lead to the establishment of heterodoxy, it only curbed minority heretical viewpoints.

[All Along The Watchtower]

An Evangelism movement borne out of post 60's boomer hedonism that promotes the self, and self fulfillment and a 'personal' relationship with God above all things, without standards? Surely some mistake.

Those definitely are defining features of the late 20th/early 21st century white* evangelical Protestant movement as a whole, but the kinds of evangelicals who are voting Trump (and honestly, some of those whom have voted Republican all this time -  though many of the latter definitely have more obviously selfish economic reasons on account of their social class) put much more emphasis on not-so-subtle racism and sexism, nostalgia for the Confederate States of America and the pre-civil rights era, and aggressive nationalism.

These are the voters who are more "cultural" or "political" evangelicals -  in that their (white) culture and (right-wing) politics trumps (no pun intended) their religious convictions (to the extent that they have any genuine or remotely consistent religious convictions). These are the voters who believe that Obama's Presidency is illegitimate and that the election is rigged against Trump. And if the opinion polls from the primaries are anything to go by, many of Trump's most hardcore white evangelical supporters aren't even reliable in terms of church attendance. So much for "consistency.."

*Note the conspicuous absence of black, Latino, Asian, and other non-white evangelicals in this discussion. It's almost as if race is relevant here...

[ag]

Becoming a State Church under the later days of the Roman Empire did not lead to the establishment of heterodoxy, it only curbed minority heretical viewpoints.

Heterodoxy may only be defined once Orthodoxy is established. Christianity becoming religion of State led to the establishment of one particular kind of Christianity as Orthodoxy. It is not very certain, that had we been able to look at it from the perspective of year 200 we would be able to predict which version would become Orthodox. Even if much of the canon had been generally agreed upon by most Christians before 300 (which, in a certain sense, is true), the Nicene Crede was to a large extend designed as refutation of Arianism: a version of Christianity which, at the time, had a very definite chance of becoming the Orthodoxy (and remained such in parts of the Christian world outside the direct Imperial control for centuries).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

ag, it certainly would have been possible for a few minor details in what would become part of the orthodox understanding of Christianity to have come out differently in the third and fourth centuries. However, those details wouldn't have affected their understanding of what the relationship of believers to their government should be. The Trinitarian/Unitarian argument is largely one for eggheads. It has no substantive bearing on how a Christian should act.

[ProudModerate2]

The whole notion that trump is devout with his religion is a big joke.
I cannot believe people of faith are so naïve and ignorant to trump's claims that religion is important to him. Incredible.
Here is an article on CNN titled : "The guilt-free gospel of Donald Trump."

You must be logged in to read this quote.