Evangelical Errors of Logic: 

Opinion and Commentary

Having come through the Evangelical movement, and having had many enlightening conversations, discussions, and debates with people from many different denominations, I feel qualified to address some of the most startling and disturbing errors of logic contained within Evangelicalism.  After I discovered these errors, I realized that the Evangelical teaching was as equally unreliable and circumspect as many of the denominations they condemn.

WARNING

This article contains personal opinions and commentary

that some might find offensive.

Evangelical - Defined

What do we mean by "Evangelical"?  For the purposes of this article, Evangelicals are defined as conservative Christians who confess the following:

1.  that individuals can accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior by reciting a short prayer.  This conversion experience is sometimes called "coming to Christ," "accepting the Lord," or "being born again."

2. a belief in the Rapture, whether pre-millennial or post-millennial

3.  a belief in the doctrine of Eternal Security, or Perseverance of the Saints.  (Also known as "once saved, always saved.")

In America, Evangelical Christians are most closely associated with the Baptist movement.  However, over the years, many Evangelical doctrines have crossed over into other denominations.  Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series, a fictional series centered around the Rapture, has introduced this uniquely Evangelical eschatology to millions that never heard of it before.

First Assumptions

In order to understand Evangelical theology, it is first necessary to understand their version of history.  The most important thing to understand about Evangelicalism is its theory that the Christian Church had plunged into error and apostasy by the fourth or fifth century AD.  This theory claims that corruption was introduced as pagan philosophies and customs entered the Church during the years after the Apostolic Age. Therefore, Evangelicals argue, any writings, customs, practices, beliefs and teachings that date from after the 100's can pretty much be dismissed as apostate error, after the Church was "hijacked" by the forces of evil. 

One cannot emphasize enough the overwhelming importance of this point.  Because this theory, as misguided and incorrect as it is, shapes the entire theology of the Evangelical system. 

Constantine and the Pagans 

Evangelicals believe that during the time of Constantine, in the 4th Century AD, pagan practices and beliefs entered the Church.  They believe that the Church started its path towards compromise and corruption when Constantine legitimized Christianity and later openly embraced it as his faith.  Fifty years later, Emperor Theodosius the Great made Christianity the state religion, outlawing the old pagan religions.  Christian historians such as Henry H. Halley have lamented this occurrence, going so far as to call this "the Worst Calamity that has ever befallen the Church."  (Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan Publishing House, 1965, p. 760).  These historians believe that by outlawing the old pagan religions, millions of unrepentant, insincere, and disgruntled pagans were forced into the Christian Church.  In order to accommodate them, it is believed, the Church "sold out" and adopted all sorts of pagan practices in order to pacify the masses.  Among these, the worship of the goddess Diana was transferred to the Virgin Mary.  Pagan superstition became enshrined in nonsense such as making the Sign of the Cross.  Icons, incense, and even a-capella chanting are all said to have their roots in pre-Christian pagan practice.

The Two Babylons

The Rev. Alexander Hislop, in his famous 19th-century work, The Two Babylons, attempted to illustrate how each and every Roman Catholic practice was, in fact, a pagan superstition dating from the ancient mystery religions of Mesopotamia, and therefore, of the devil.  Today, there are denominations that reject the celebration of Christmas, because originally it was the pagan holiday of Saturnalia, and before that, the pagan Winter Solstice of the Resurrection of Tammuz.  There are groups that deny that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Cross, because, after all, the cross was a well-known pagan symbol used in worship for thousands of years, and there is simply no way that the Lord would allow His Holy Son to be crucified on a pagan object that was so clearly identified with the devil.  Instead, they say, he was actually crucified on a stake.

Groups that deny Christmas or the Cross, because of some perceived pre-Christian pagan symbolism, seem to think that the Lord is somehow powerless to transform old meanings into new.  They seem to believe in a weak God, a God who is powerless against Satan, powerless to take the old pagan symbol of the Cross, and to completely regenerate its meaning.  The Cross has been transformed from pagan symbol to Symbol of Victory!  Christ took the old pagan symbol and poured new meaning into it.  In the same way that the Old Testament prefigured the New, the old symbol (that had been around for a long time) foreshadowed What Was to Come!  The Lord is not weak; He is Powerful and Mighty, and he can choose to take all the old pagan practices and regenerate them in newness of meaning.

(Having said this, of course, I wonder how many Christians out there are startled to find out that the cross was a pagan symbol stretching back thousands of years.  Calm down - it's okay.  Jesus Christ sanctified the Cross with His own precious blood, and purified it.  So therefore the old pagan meanings have been done away with.)

The NT Church:  Developed in a Vacuum?

Having been established in the Middle East, and taking root and spreading out from there, it is entirely reasonable that the Early NT Church would inherit a great deal from its surrounding environment, culturally, theologically, and linguistically.  The Early Church inherited a cycle of daily prayers and scripture reading from the Jewish synagogue practice current at that time.  The fact that the Jews were worshipping in this manner before the Apostolic Age does not make it wrong or "invalid."  The Early NT Church adopted the use of incense and candles, both widely used in religious observances throughout the Middle East.  The fact that Jews and Gentiles were using incense, lamps and candles before the Apostolic Age does not make their use wrong or "invalid."  The Church adopted these practices, and in so doing, poured new meaning into them, to the glory of the name of Jesus Christ.  (For a further discussion of the elements of Judaism immediately prior to the Christian Era, please see my paper "Judaic Elements.PDF"  You need to have Adobe Acrobat PDF Reader installed.)

But Evangelicals don't understand it like that.  They have a very one-dimensional system of holiness that handcuffs God, and makes Him a prisoner of the devil's activities.  They don't seem to believe that the Early NT Church had the authority to inherit local customs and adopt them into Christian practice.  Theirs is a very closed-minded holiness.  For example, if it can be demonstrated that some devil-worshipping Sumerian cult invented wax candles 4000 years ago, in order to light them to their pagan deity, then Evangelicals seem to believe that wax candles themselves, now every single one of them, are completely and totally of the devil.  They are evil, they were invented for an evil purpose, and they certainly don't have any place in a Christian ceremony.  Therefore, in their theology, God is very weak.  God is so weak, in fact, that once the devil does something with wax candles, God cannot re-sanctify them and start over.  Nope, once people start using wax candles to worship the devil, then they are "tainted" throughout all eternity, and God is powerless to change it.  Needless to say, this type of theology is absurd, and riddled with childish superstition.

Hislop even attacks traditional Christian iconography as having come from the devil.  Hislop explains how the "nimbus," the halo which appears around a saint's head, was originally the pagan solar deity disc portrayed in Babylonian art 2500 years before the time of Christ.  The practice of drawing a little circle around the head of a divine or semi-divine pagan deity was passed down through the centuries.  Hislop uses this example to underscore his point about the paganization of the Christian Church - by the time you get to the 300's and 400's, he argues, Christian saints are being portrayed with a large gold nimbus prominently displayed around their heads.  To his way of thinking, the devil has won and the Church has been corrupted.  Christ Himself is shown with the nimbus, and therefore, Hislop concludes, he has become transformed into the Pagan God of the Solar Deity Disc, the pagan messiah.  And in the same way that the ancient pagans had venerated Semiramis, the mother of the pagan god Tammuz, so the Roman church portrays the nimbus around the head of Mary, holding the Christ child. Hislop, furious about this whole affair, cannot hide his anger as he pronounces judgment:  "Now, could anyone possibly believe that all this coincidence could be accidental... but that did not hinder the hot anger of God from being directed against those in the days of old who worshipped that "image of jealousy, provoking to jealousy." (Ezek. 8:3).  Neither can the giving of the name of Christ to the infant in the arms of the Romish Madonna, make it less the "image of jealousy," less offensive to the Most High, less fitted to provoke His high displeasure, when it is evident that that infant is worshipped as the child of her who was adored as Queen of Heaven, with all the attributes of divinity, and was at the same time the "Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth."  (Rev. Alexander Hislop: The Two Babylons - or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife, [Neptune NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1916], pp. 87,88.)

Most of The Two Babylons carries on in much the same manner:  an angry, intolerant attitude towards each and every Roman Catholic practice.  Thank goodness we have Hislop to inform us of the things that offend God, and provoke "His high displeasure."  Hislop is the archetype of the closed-minded Northern European Protestant with an axe to grind against the Roman church.  His book can hardly be considered balanced, or even objective.  His work is an assassination of the Catholic church, from the opening pages to the last.  Most telling, however, is Hislop's failure to distinguish between the Roman church of the West and the Orthodox Church of the East.  Had Hislop actually attempted a balanced and comprehensive study of Christian history, he would have been confronted with many significant theological differences between the two.  Hislop, however, does not refer to the writings of the Early Fathers, nor does he mention any of the Seven General Ecumenical Councils.  Hislop fills his book with staggering amounts of research into ancient pagan mythologies and belief systems, but in his index, one cannot find entries for subjects as important as "Orthodox" or "Seventh Ecumenical Council," which upheld the theology of iconography.  Hislop even fails to mention perhaps the most beloved and well-respected preacher of all time, St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople.  Hislop is guilty of the same blind-spot that most Evangelical Christians have today: the Orthodox Church is not even on the radar screen.  For Hislop, he didn't even think to research it.

In much the same way, the Evangelicals of today carry this closed-minded attitude towards holiness.  They reject the idea that God is a powerful God; free to take all the old pagan customs and reinvent them.  They not only believe stuff like The Two Babylons, they consider it to be absolute, objective truth.  When Hislop is pronouncing his anathemas against the Roman church, these people are cheering!  "Yep, them darn Roman Catholics, they're all a cult, they don't even know the Lord, they're all walking in error!  They pray to Mary, the Pope is controlled by Satan, yep, by cracky, they're all lost!  Every single one of them!  They'll all burn in hell, and the Roman church is the Great Whore of Revelation."  How many pamphlets and tracts did I read that made these claims?  How many discussions with fellow church goers about the Roman Catholics, walking in error, who don't know the Lord?  There is a palpable dislike - no, stronger than dislike - there is a palpable intolerance towards Roman Catholics.  I'm sorry, it's just not Christian to go around hating people.

Today, there are denominations that reject incense, wax candle tapers, holy water, sacraments, even the hierarchical structure of deacons, priests, and bishops, simply because of the strong anti-Roman Catholic sentiment that stormed through the Protestant Reformation and remains today.  It seems that many conservative Christians and Evangelicals believe, "any practice of the Roman Catholic Church must automatically be rejected as error.  Whatever they believe, we must believe the opposite.  Whatever liturgical tradition they practice, we must deny."  Even Martin Luther himself never took this kind of radical stand.

The Historical Record:  The Early Christians

My research indicates that anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox prejudices need to be laid aside.  Christian history and archeological research now show that, in fact, many of the practices and customs of the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches most definitely existed in the Early NT Church.  The writings of the Early Fathers, for example, witness and testify that many of these practices were already in place before the 300's.  The prestigious Protestant publication Christian History, in Vol. XII Number 1, (1993), presented a full-issue exploration of "Worship in the Early Church."  Among their sources they cited Justin Martyr (150 AD), Hippolytus (215 AD), Cyprian of Carthage (255 AD), and the Didache (pronounced DEE-dah-kay) c. 100 AD.  Among their findings:

1.  Worship in the Early NT Church was liturgical in nature, centered around the celebration of the Lord's Supper.  The laity did not sit around a big room holding Bible studies; no, there was a certain hierarchy proceeding from the local bishop (episcopos), through the presbyters and deacons, for the active, physical worship of God, using hymns, prayers, litanies, and responses.  The congregation took an active role in the participation during these services.  Understandably enough, these services borrowed much from the cycles and rhythms of the Jewish culture, and made extensive use of the Psalter.

2.  Baptism was not optional; full immersion water baptism was generally understood by all to be the sacrament that offered admission into the Church, and which marked the beginning of the live of the believer.  Entire households were baptized, including children and infants.

3.  The Church was called by the Greek word, "kathalikos," meaning, "universal."  The teachings, doctrine, and worship were basically the same, at all times, in all places, throughout the Mediterranean.  Bishops corresponded with one another and copies of the New Testament Gospels and Epistles spread from church to church.

4.  Also, they discovered, that by the early 200's Christians everywhere identified themselves by making the Sign of the Cross.  This was not a pagan superstition - it was the way in which True Believers in the Holy Lord Jesus Christ secretly identified themselves to each other during a time when the Church was under persecution by the ungodly forces of evil.  It is a practice and a piety that was carried down throughout the centuries.

For Christians of today to reject the Sign of the Cross (simply because "the Roman Catholics do it") is to show little appreciation of those holy and blessed early Christians that underwent persecution and suffered martyrdom for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Those early Christians struggled in the face of tremendous adversity, to keep the faith, to hide the Holy Writings from the armies of the Roman Empire, and to persevere so that their children, and their children's children, could live free as Christians, worshipping the The Holy Trinity, One God in Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.

Some Modern Misconceptions

Those early Christians in the first centuries:  were they saved, or not?  Were they "really" Christians?  This is a crucial question that many Evangelicals have sidestepped long enough.

The Evangelical movement has done a good job convincing themselves that the Early Church was lost in apostasy and paganism.  Evangelicals today seem to draw a line at the close of the First Century AD, corresponding to death of St. John the Evangelist, and the authoring of the Apocalypse, what today we call Revelation.

Letter to an Evangelical
by Father Michael B. Johnson 

Christianity Today:  Issue 54, "Eastern Orthodoxy"

Salvation by Christ

by Carmen Fragapane

What Evangelicals should know about Negrut’s assessment of Eastern Orthodoxy

by Joel Kalvesmaki

Ahh, and now we have uncovered the supreme error of the Evangelicals:  a double standard, a paradox, a logical conundrum from which there is no escape.  For while on the one hand, they eschew and deride customs or traditions that developed after the Apostolic Age, many embrace and accept Christmas, which wasn't invented until the late 300's.  Unfortunately, the early Christians in the Apostolic Age did not celebrate Christmas.  They did not put up trees in their homes, they did not go out caroling, and they did not exchange gifts.  They did not send out Christmas cards to their family and friends.  They did not go to the mall to take their children to sit in Santa Claus' lap. The early Christians did none of this. If you want to be just like the early Christians, then you can't celebrate Christmas at all, anymore.  Because if you do, you are accepting to follow a Christian tradition and custom that developed later, just like: the Sign of the Cross.  If it is perfectly okay for an Evangelical to celebrate Christmas, even though it came centuries later, (and much later than the Sign of the Cross), then it is perfectly okay for Christians to incorporate other traditions and customs that came later, as well.

- S P E C I A L L Y   F E A T U R E D   A D V E R T I S E R -

Orthodox Religious Icons

"Come And See Icons.com" is a fantastic website featuring a LARGE collection of beautiful icons from across America and around the world, well-organized alphabetically, available for purchase.  Also featuring books, CD's, and art.  Prompt mail order service and great prices.  A small family-run business, you get personal attention and the satisfaction of knowing you are dealing with a devoted Orthodox family!    * Highly recommended *

Come And See Icons.com

Of course, I can hear the arguments against this extreme stand.  Perhaps one might argue that even though they developed very late in Christian history, chapter and verse numbers are a good enhancement and provide an additional aid to biblical study.  Therefore, seeing the tremendous benefit that we get from chapter and verse numbers, we should continue to use them.  Wouldn't you agree?

Unfortunately, to accept this position completely undermines the  Evangelical theory of Christian history.  Again, their position is that the Church plunged into heresy and error after the Apostolic Age, and therefore the only items that can be accepted as part of the genuine, authentic Christian revelation are those that occurred exclusively during the Apostolic Age, and no later.  If it can be demonstrated that there have been later developments to Christianity that were good, or acceptable, then this means that the door did NOT shut at the close of the Apostolic Age, and that there have been developments to Christianity as it grew and matured; changes and enhancements that helped to better communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples, and to deepen their understanding and their faith.

So if Evangelicals want to be consistent, and if they think they can deny the Sign of the Cross because it was "a later development," then they need to remove all the chapter and verse numbers from their Bibles, because these, too, were a later development.  These two developments are absolutely equivalent.  To deny one necessarily means that you must deny the other.  My goodness, one of them didn't come along until 1550!

Let's look at another one of these "later" enhancements, the Doctrine of the Trinity.  Trinitarian doctrine was not widely discussed nor debated during the Apostolic Age.  It wasn't until the 4th Century AD that the Church, wrestling with the Arian heresy, finally confronted the need for an exhaustive and comprehensive explanation of this important theological issue.  From out of the controversy and conflict, the Church forged a doctrine, formulated by brilliant thinkers working with the Holy Spirit, and agreed to in great Councils of their day.

Evangelicals hold strongly to a belief in the Holy Trinity, worshipping the One God in Three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  But all the heavy lifting on Trinitarian Doctrine was performed by the Orthodox saints of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries.  Don't Evangelicals know that?  Are they so unlearned or unschooled in Church History?  Or perhaps, since the Trinitarian Doctrine was "developed" by all those "unregenerate Catholics" (who probably didn't even "know the Lord,") perhaps the Doctrine itself is more pagan devil-worshipping mumbo-jumbo they invented when the Church plunged into error.  This precisely is the belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses.  They point to the existence of the Babylonian Trinity 2500 years before Christ, and claim that the devil himself invented the idea of three gods.  They see the Trinity as a pagan accretion to Christianity, incompatible with the Hebrew shema in Deuteronomy 6:4.

But any right-thinking Christian can clearly see that the development and the articulation of a comprehensive doctrine of the Trinity was a good development for Christian theology.  And, it occurred 250 years after the close of the Apostolic Age.

Therefore, we have demonstrated that there HAVE BEEN sound, godly developments in Christianity after the close of the Apostolic Age.  We have illustrated developments not only in a major point of theology, but also in a practical issue such as the structure and transmission of the Word of God itself, the Holy Bible.  Therefore, contrary to what Evangelicals claim to believe, we have illustrated that the door did NOT close at the end of the Apostolic Age.

So, facing all this, as an Evangelical, I started to see the tremendous difficulties with the entire system.  Then I happened to read Matthew 16:18 in a new light.