• Emphasis on the Cross, often (but not exclusively) taking a Penal Substititionary Atonement model.
• Centrality of Scripture, it's "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct" (could be inerrancy or infallibility)
• Importance of conversion, evangelicals believe in a need to make a personal decision to follow Christ.
• Activism, the Christian faith is something that results in action - primarily evangelism, though also social action.

• Emphasis on the Cross
• Centrality of Scripture
• Importance of conversion
• Activism

quote:

---

died on the cross in our place, and rose again to prove His victory and empower us for life.

---

quote:

---

Substitutionary Atoning Death

---

quote:

---

We believe that the Bible is God's Word. It is accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives.

---

quote:

---

We believe that the Bible (i.e. the Old and New Testaments excluding the Apocrypha), is the inspired Word of God, the infallible, all sufficient rule for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:21).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Gordon Cheng has suggested that Pentecostals are not Evangelical and also that they are probably not even Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Gordon Cheng has suggested that Pentecostals are not Evangelical and also that they are probably not even Christian.

---

No he didn't: he said - on the basis of my testimony - that Hillsong Church London probably isn't Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
Certainly, there's no reason why Pentecostals couldn't be Evangelical. Though many Pentecostals and Charismatics wouldn't be (I've known many Charismatic Catholics who would have difficulty with some of the above, primacy of Scripture especially).

The Charismatic emphasis on the Spirit does result in a different perspective, that can sit uneasily with mainstream evangelical belief. So, conversion becomes instead of just a personal decision to accept Christ as Saviour and Lord something that includes an experience of the power of the Spirit. An emphasis on the importance of Pentecost can de-emphasise the Cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
The original comments made by Gordon, were just about Pentecostals. I intentionally did not widen this out to charismatics in my OP, realising that there are plenty of Catholic or Anglican charismatics, who would have no desire to be Evangelical.

---

quote:

---

As I have understood, in Pentecostal rather than Charismatic doctrine, there is a second experience after conversion called by them "Baptism in the Spirit". Since for them this can only come after the original conversion experience "at the cross" I don't see how that would de-emphasise the cross, although I do agree that it would give a different perspective.

---

The "Baptism of the Spirit" is a Charismatic as well as Pentecostal doctrine. And, I've certainly come across Charismatics who would consider that Baptism in the Spirit is the true conversion event. This can, though certainly doesn't always, make salvation dependant on both the Atonement of Christ and the Baptism of the Spirit in a manner that makes mainstream evangelicals uncomfortable as it can be seen to be saying the Cross was not enough. Though, I'd personally put that down to a weakness of some evangelical theology in failing to recognise that Christ did more than die - for a start he also gave the Spirit.
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
I went to Pentecostal churches for about 8 years. One of them was a breakaway group that athen proclaimed that it was charismatic, but there was very little difference between the two churches.

They were most definitely evangelical and most definitely Christian. They cared deeply about the saving work of Christ on the cross. They were deeply committed to backing up their words with actions and with their wallets. Conversion was a big thing and it was expected that the churches would have a steady flow of converts. And of course, the Bible held a very central part in every meeting. Those two churches had some excellent preachers and teachers.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Having been a member of an AoG church for 6 years, and fairly recently at that, I can assure you they are very evangelical.

My church at least, and it very much went along with the AoG line, preached the cross far more than the resurrection and was firmly into PSA. And hell, of course. The flames of hell awaited all who were 'lost' (which could include the more liberal branches of Christianity, or even RC's!)

The 'conversion experience' was all-important - many a time I have heard the Pastor say that someone was "so nearly there, but couldn't just make the final step to give all to Jesus". And yes, like Babybear's experience, evangelism was expected to result in many 'converts'. It was a failure if it didn't.

Baptism 'in the Spirit' was stressed, very much so, and if you 'hadn't got it' you were prayed over until you jolly well did!!

My particular church was very charismatic, though I have visted Elim and AoG churches that were not so, and viewed the "Toronto Blessing" for example, with scepticism. But then I have been in charismatic Baptist churches that were more charismatic than some Pentecostal churches, and where you were expected to fall over every time you got prayed for!

Personally, I found the emphasis on the 'simplicity' of the Gospel, and the very black and white, fundamentalist, the Bible is inerrant, outlook too much to take, my mind was too full of questions that were deemed unseemly or difficult, and my views on some subjects downright heretical and unbiblical.

But yes, they are Christians. They just like God in their own little box!

Sorry if I've offended anyone, I can only speak of my own experience.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "Baptism of the Spirit" is a Charismatic as well as Pentecostal doctrine. And, I've certainly come across Charismatics who would consider that Baptism in the Spirit is the true conversion event. This can, though certainly doesn't always, make salvation dependant on both the Atonement of Christ and the Baptism of the Spirit in a manner that makes mainstream evangelicals uncomfortable as it can be seen to be saying the Cross was not enough. Though, I'd personally put that down to a weakness of some evangelical theology in failing to recognise that Christ did more than die - for a start he also gave the Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trini:
At my current church however views vary widely and I don't know that everyone would agree with PSA but there is certainly an emphasis on the cross and I'm fairly sure it's the official line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trini:
After you receive the gift of salvation, you may or may not receive other gifts including the gift of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues. These gifts (including the ever-popular tongues) do not affect or improve your salvation. You don't have to be 'baptised in the Spirit' to be saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Ah yes, but to Pentecostals salvation and baptism in the Spirit are two separate things. Baptism in the Spirit is evidenced by the gifts of the Spirit - usually, but not always, tongues, though some Pentecostal churches still insist that tongues is the evidence of Baptism in the Spirit.

That's just the way it goes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have to agree that salvation and Baptism in the Spirit are contemporaneous, part of what James Dunn calls the 'conversion-initiation' process. To argue otherwise - for some kind of two-stage conversion process or two-speed Christianity - to my mind smacks of Valentinianism ( psychics and pneumatics )and that's an extremely old gnostic heresy/ heterodoxy...

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't it more accurate to say that pentecostals tend to believe that baptism in the Spirit is some kind of optional 'second blessing' over and above salvation itself? And wouldn't it be more accurate to say that pentecostals have the tendency to believe that this 'baptism' must involve a 'crisis experience' (feelings of ecstacy, love, heat, trembling, utterances, visions etc.)?

---

Yes, you are probably right - I was just saying it in fewer words!! Although the 'optional' bit isn't all that optional when you get to the nitty gritty! Like I said earlier, if you haven't had the 'Baptism in the Spirit' and the Pastors and Elders get their hands on you (literally!) you will be prayed over until you jolly well get it!

By 'crisis' - do you mean in their lives, or just a sudden 'spiritual' thing? Personally I feel it is an emotional experience, and I do wonder now, though I didn't then, just how authentic the tongues, visions, words of prophecy or knowledge are at that time. I do believe that gifts of the spirit can be authentic in some situations where they are encouraged.
 

---

Posted by Trini (# 7921) on :
 
In Pentecostal circles, I've always heard the terms 'speaking in tongues' and 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' used interchangably; but seemingly distinct from salvation. I mean our water baptisms, for instance, are done in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit but at the same time, people have this very certain idea that being baptised in the Spirit means that you'll jabber on for a bit. Then again, the phrase isn't just 'baptism of the HS', I think that is short for 'baptism of the HS with evidence of speaking in tongues'.

I am not entirely clear if it's possible that some Pentecostals think you can be baptised in the HS without evidence of speaking in tongues. Some time during the late 80s or early 90s when tongues were 'in' at my old church, people began to worry that they didn't 'have' the HS (if they weren't speaking in tongues) and they were consoled that they probably did although you could only be sure if you had the tongues.

It is a problem because the sense was that you needed to somehow earn the HS's interest.

I can't say that I've heard my current ministers use the term baptism of the HS at all. They avoid it like the plague. From my previous church though, I am quite certain that the teaching is: Holy Spirit=tongues.

Personally, I agree with m.t_tomb and Matt Black though.

As I mentioned, in my churches I have never encountered people who think tongue-speaking is imperative. In fact, when I took the membership class at my current church, the minister seemed a bit uncomfortable about the whole tongues thing when someone mentioned it.

[ 15. July 2005, 14:15: Message edited by: Trini ]
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
Thank you to everyone who has posted hinting at the dangers of gnosticism in pentecostalism - that is a conclustion I had already drawn myself. However my current question was not so much, are Pentecostals right or wrong, but more can they be considered to be Evangelical.
 

---

Posted by Trini (# 7921) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have to agree that salvation and Baptism in the Spirit are contemporaneous, part of what James Dunn calls the 'conversion-initiation' process. To argue otherwise - for some kind of two-stage conversion process or two-speed Christianity - to my mind smacks of Valentinianism ( psychics and pneumatics )and that's an extremely old gnostic heresy/ heterodoxy...

---

quote:

---

I don't think it's fair to say that Pentecostals believe in a two-step conversion. Speaking in tongues is not neccessary for Pentecostals and it has nothing to do with conversion.

---

quote:

---

We believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit as an enduement of the believer with power for service, the essential, biblical evidence of which is the speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (Acts 1:4-5, 8, 2:4, 10:44-46, 11:14-16, 19:6).

---

Can't get much clearer than that! And, like I said, if you ain't got it, better get prayed for sister, else you ain't a proper Christian!
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Practically speaking, I'd say that the answer to the question is certainly yes, meaning that they have more in common with Evangelicals in terms of their ability to tick the same boxes on a questionnaire than they would with liberal protestants or most Roman Catholics.

I don't think the question ends there, however. There's a novelty about Pentecostalism and (via the Full Gospel Business Mens Fellowship International and Dennis Bennett et. al.) Charismatic christianity in general which ought to make us question how easily it sits with Evangelicalism and with the Christian tradition generally.

RR
admitting he's a little obsessed about this point
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Gordon, I can't quite see why you 'can't get a handle' on Pentecostalism.

Maybe its different in Oz, but here the Elim and Assemblies of God churches state quite plainly they are Pentecostal churches. Some don't always announce themselves so, but you often find, in small letters down the bottom of things 'we are an accredited church of the Assemblies of God' or some such words.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Because it is so hard to get a good handle on defining either 'Pentecostal' or 'evangelical', I would hesitate to answer the OP question by anything more than a definite 'yes', 'no', and 'maybe', depending a great deal on variables like "who exactly", "where" (terminology floats about from country to country and even city to city on meaning, eg a Melbourne evangelical and a Sydney evangelical are not the same critter) and "when" ('evangelical' in CICCU 1919 looks different from UK evangelical in 2005).

---

quote:

---

But if you want to check out the Hillsong thread in Hell for background, then the specific claim I would make is that the understanding and teaching of the cross has been thoroughly sidelined within those churches; in particular the Hillsong church at Castle Hill in Sydney. I base this claim on the Hillsong Australia website, which may be found here, and a range of testimonies from various observers who would describe themselves variously as secular, evangelical, charismatic, or pentecostal.

---

Could you say specifically, what it is on the Hillsong website, which makes you say that they are not evangelical?
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
I've had a quick look at the Hillsong web site, and must say I've heard all that stuff preached in evangelical churches!

The only part I would say that some evangelical churches wouldn't go along with, although many Pentecostal churches would, is their take on healing. "God wants you strong and prosperous" seems to be the main theme, bit too much like the Word of Faith to be the ordinary Evangelical line.

And their teaching on depression made me really angry! But that's another thread!
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
There's a novelty about Pentecostalism and (via the Full Gospel Business Mens Fellowship International and Dennis Bennett et al) Charismatic christianity in general which ought to make us question how easily it sits with Evangelicalism and with the Christian tradition generally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Well, it might interest you to know that I was converted at an FGBMFI dinner, but after only a short period of time realised that much of what they were teaching was dodgy. God works in mysterious ways...

---

That is rather like the way I was converted after seeing the film Thief in the Night.......

[ 16. July 2005, 14:28: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
The key difference in my in opinion between Pentecostalism and Evangelicism is the role of experience. The early Pentecostal church in America claimed they had an experience of God, which they called Baptism of the Holy Spirit and claimed that it was the same as recorded in Acts.

Pentecostal theology is rooted in experience and they use the Bible to explain their experiences hence ‘orthopathy’ is important to them. Pentecostals use testimony a lot and use the bible in a way that an evangelical would probably blush at. Evangelicals normally claim that an understanding of the Bible is paramount and hence they have a greater focus on orthodox belief and they look in the bible for the correct doctrines to believe in. To persuade an evangelical a theological belief is wrong you have start with a argument taken from the Bible to persuade a Pentecostal you need to start with a testimony. I think of the charismatic movement as the meeting of Pentecostal and evangelicism traditions.

Although both streams of Christianity have much in common they are both quite distinct. Hence I think the question is about as appropriate as asking ‘are Evangelicals Orthodox?’
 

---

Posted by Eloise (# 4292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trini:
In fact, the vast differences that can be found at churches that say 'Pentecostal' on the door, can make finding a new church quite scary. There's hardly any way to tell whether you'll walk in to find everyone slain in the Spirit or if it'll just be a hymn sandwich.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eloise:
... but I can see how Hillsong Sydney could reasonably be considered so....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:

The AoG (Assemblies of God) Statement of Faith includes this:

quote:

---

We believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit as an enduement of the believer with power for service, the essential, biblical evidence of which is the speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (Acts 1:4-5, 8, 2:4, 10:44-46, 11:14-16, 19:6).

---

Can't get much clearer than that! And, like I said, if you ain't got it, better get prayed for sister, else you ain't a proper Christian!

---

quote:

---

I just don't see this as requiring Holy Spirit baptism for everyone - especially not as a part of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Wouldn't it more accurate to say that pentocostals tend to believe that baptism in the Spirit is some kind of optional 'second blessing' over and above salvation itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
The distictions between pentecostal and charismatic seem to me to be very artificial. As far as I can see, people are using 'pentecostal' to refer to someone who happens to belong to one of the groups of penecostal churches mostly established in the early 20th century and 'charismatic' to refer to people who belong to churches established in the later part of the 20th century (plus a lot of people in traditional denominations!). [/URL]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
... But I'd certainly say they were (are?) a sub-group of evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
... But I'd certainly say they were (are?) a sub-group of evangelicals.

---

While it appears to me that Pentecostals are a sub-group of evangelicals,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Pentecostalim sees the Bible as a book through which we encounter God so the historical distance between us and the events in the Bible is minimalised.

---

quote:

---

Evangelicism think of the bible as a resource for doctrine.

---

• an high emphasis on experiences in shaping theology
• a semi-deist view of God that 'only' sees the hand of God in the extraordinary, rather than the natural
• an over-realised eschatology (believe that the promises of heaven are able to be experienced now)
• low view of the power of sin in the life of the believer
• share fundamentalism's poor theological contextualism of the OT and its 'apocalyptic' worldview

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Would you agree, Gordon, that Melbourne and Sydney evangelicals (whatever they might be!) have some things in common, and that CICCU 1919 would have some things in common with UK evangelicals in 2005, and even that all these four sets would have some things in common?

---

quote:

---

Could you say specifically, what it is on the Hillsong website, which makes you say that they are not evangelical?

---

quote:

---

1Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Cor. 1:19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
1Cor. 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Cor. 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Cor. 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Cor. 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Cor. 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My fundamental objection is that the cross has become almost invisible, both at the most trivial level of scarcely being mentioned, and at the most profound level of not being gloried in as the divine wisdom which overthrows human wisdom, power, and might; nor is there even any evidence that the cross is understood, nor is there any evidence that a theology of the cross has been applied (which is hardly surprising, because how can you apply what you don't understand?).

---

quote:

---

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ as both God and man is the only One who can reconcile us to God. He lived a sinless and exemplary life, died on the cross in our place, and rose again to prove His victory and empower us for life.
We believe that in order to receive forgiveness and the 'new birth' we must repent of our sins, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and submit to His will for our lives.

---

If we're arguing from a doctrinal viewpoint, that would appear to me to be completely evangelical. If you think it isn't please could you explain to me why not? I'm sorry but I don't understand your suit analogy.

Hillsong, or other Pentecostals, may do and teach plenty of things I don't like, but it seems to me that on the issue of salvation, it's not possible to affirm that they aren't evangelical.

[fixed code]

[ 20. July 2005, 14:19: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Firstly, congratulations! On finding the one reference to the cross of any significance on the entire site.

OK, I haven't checked every single page, but I checked a lot.

This statement about the cross is OK as far as it goes, but can you think of any branch or sub-branch of Christianity (Eastern or Western, liberal, catholic, orthodox, ecumenical, charismatic, evangelical, universalist, neo-orthodox, montanist, donatist, gnostic, mystic, or _______?) that would dispute what is said here?

If yes, who?

If no, is it your contention that the whole of Christendom is evangelical?

(Don't worry about the analogy, if it doesn't suit then there's no need to wear it. It was off the cuff, so no need to sock it to me )
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Firstly, congratulations! On finding the one reference to the cross of any significance on the entire site.

---

Strangely enough, the statement of faith was the first place I looked to find a statement of what they believe. I also think that Eutychus provided a link to that particular page on the thread in Hell.

quote:

---

This statement about the cross is OK as far as it goes, but can you think of any branch or sub-branch of Christianity (Eastern or Western, liberal, catholic, orthodox, ecumenical, charismatic, evangelical, universalist, neo-orthodox, montanist, donatist, gnostic, mystic, or _______?) that would dispute what is said here?

If yes, who?

---

quote:

---

The Lord Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son, is fully God; he was born of a virgin; his humanity is real and sinless; he died on the cross, was raised bodily from death and is now reigning over heaven and earth.

---

quote:

---

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ as both God and man is the only One who can reconcile us to God. He lived a sinless and exemplary life, died on the cross in our place, and rose again to prove His victory and empower us for life.

---

Spot the difference. I was sorely tempted to do a Private Eye, swop them round and see how many posts it took before someone twigged my deliberate mistake. Hillsongs have "in our place" added so unlike your DB we can at least be assured that they are sound on PSA unlike so many in our fallen world.

Surely if there is a problem (and I agree with you that there is) it is the addition of several paragraphs of psychobabble to the end of the Classic Evangelical Model™. But the first half of the Hillsongs DB is, to my untrained eye, pretty close to the one you posted earlier. Which makes this, for my money, an intra-evangelical row, not between evangelicals on the one hand and pentecostals who are not evangelicals on the other.

[ 20. July 2005, 13:21: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
What Callan said.

Oh, and

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:

• an over-realised eschatology (believe that the promises of heaven are able to be experienced now)

---

quote:

---

Hillsong has been specifically criticised ... for having an over-realised eschatology. I have claimed that is a specifically evangelical danger, and no-one has yet countered that claim.

---

 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I disagree with Gracie that Roman Catholic teaching would deny what Hillsong says about the cross—though they might add to it things that they would consider were missing. The role of Mary would, I imagine, be something that RCs would say more about. But it is hard to see that the Roman Catholics would actually oppose what the Hillsong statement says here. I mean, what's wrong with it? (from their point of view)

But my criticism of the Hillsong statement about the cross is not that it is wrong but that it is vague to the point of near-meaninglessness; add to this that when the statement is bulked out by what Callan calls psychobabble (too right!) we are left wondering not only whether it is meaningful but whether the true meaning and significance is really seen as something that matters.

As it is, the Hillsong statement on the cross seems to be an orthodox fragment floating in a sea of warm fudge—a bit like that Dutch lady a few years back who mashed up millions of dollars of artworks her son had stolen and fed them down the waste disposal. Someone might have gotten lucky and spotted a fragment of Rembrandt floating down a canal with all the muck you would expect to find in an Amsterdam ditch, but at that moment the only value of the scrap is to the person who remembers what the original looked like and can weep at what it has now become.

The UCCF statement on the cross is by itself a bit vaguer than I would like, and it's nice to see that Callan has such a firm grasp on evangelical basics. I personally think it could do with an update, and you can guess which direction I'd take it in I think But I'm only really making one specific point, and its not about how best to define evangelicalism. It's to say that Hillsong has effectively sidelined the cross whilst paying vague lip service to continuing to believe in it. And that is definitely not an evangelical thing to do.

If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative — this is what "Take up your cross" means, among other things. Where do the Hillsong folk speak about how the Christian life will be one of suffering, shame, persecution, being reviled for Christ's sake, and wasting away bodily while inwardly being renewed in Christ's image?

No, I couldn't find that either.

[ 20. July 2005, 14:09: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Double post to add: Oh, and Euty, nice to see you in here. The Hell thread was a bit of fun but maybe by keeping the topic precise, we can make some progress...
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative — this is what "Take up your cross" means, among other things. Where do the Hillsong folk speak about how the Christian life will be one of suffering, shame, persecution, being reviled for Christ's sake, and wasting away bodily while inwardly being renewed in Christ's image? No, I couldn't find that either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative — this is what "Take up your cross" means, among other things. Where do the Hillsong folk speak about how the Christian life will be one of suffering, shame, persecution, being reviled for Christ's sake, and wasting away bodily while inwardly being renewed in Christ's image?

No, I couldn't find that either.

---

quote:

---

The UCCF statement on the cross is by itself a bit vaguer than I would like, and it's nice to see that Callan has such a firm grasp on evangelical basics.

---

quote:

---

If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative — this is what "Take up your cross" means, among other things. Where do the Hillsong folk speak about how the Christian life will be one of suffering, shame, persecution, being reviled for Christ's sake, and wasting away bodily while inwardly being renewed in Christ's image?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Firstly, congratulations! On finding the one reference to the cross of any significance on the entire site.

OK, I haven't checked every single page, but I checked a lot.

This statement about the cross is OK as far as it goes, but can you think of any branch or sub-branch of Christianity (Eastern or Western, liberal, catholic, orthodox, ecumenical, charismatic, evangelical, universalist, neo-orthodox, montanist, donatist, gnostic, mystic, or _______?) that would dispute what is said here?

If yes, who?

If no, is it your contention that the whole of Christendom is evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative — this is what "Take up your cross" means <snip bits of my stuff>

---

Now, this maybe explains some of our misunderstanding. When you said "They don't preach/teach the cross..." I automatically thought you meant the cross of Christ, because that's what I understand by the cross. However from what you've written above, it would appear that by the cross, you mean a life of suffering, which obviously is missing from Hillsong if not all Pentecostal thought.

---

quote:

---

Another question: how many people equate evangelicalism with living a life of suffering?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative — this is what "Take up your cross" means, among other things. Where do the Hillsong folk speak about how the Christian life will be one of suffering, shame, persecution, being reviled for Christ's sake, and wasting away bodily while inwardly being renewed in Christ's image?

---

I've never seen this on a DB and I would be faintly worried if I did. For a Christian community in the Sudan it would hardly need spelling out (although hopefully if the peace deal works out things will improve). For a Christian community in the prosperous west it would sound absurdly pompous and self-congratulatory. Can you imagine HTB, for example, putting that on their website. Soren Kierkegaard would be turning in his grave. "God has chosen the foolish things of this world, the things that are despised... and no-one laughs".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
GC your basic position seems to be that Hillsong aren't evangelical because the cross is not central enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If someone really believes in the cross, then you would expect to see the necessity of suffering in the Christian life not only mentioned but set forth as normative <my bit snipped>

---

I see. Can you explain how one discerns this in the current booklist from your linked homepage or the statement of belief which is to be found there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, it is missing. But no, I'm not simply suggesting that it’s an expected feature of Christian experience that we stub our toes on a daily basis.

“Take up your cross”, as you know, is Jesus’ challenge to anyone who wants to follow him (Mark 8:34 and elsewhere). When the challenge is offered, it is not merely a challenge to embark on a life of generalized suffering, hair shirts, and the perpetual reading of Dan Brown novels. It’s a challenge to trust our lives to him and, in so doing, share in the suffering that he experiences (pre-eminently at the cross). It’s what Jesus means when he says “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” and “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15).

---

quote:

---

Another question: how many people equate evangelicalism with living a life of suffering?

quote:

---

Not enough.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

One of the things I believe (as an evangelical) is that my experience is shaped by what I believe, not vice-versa.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, something that is true tends to get put into a doctrinal basis either because it is true and important, or true and annoying—or preferably, all of the above.

For example, the virgin birth is true and unimportant, but was put in to the UCCF doctrinal statement back in the 1930s in order to annoy liberals of the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Euty,

I am struggling to discern here what is serious comment, and what is sarcastic sideswipe. However, if what you say is true it needs to be addressed. I am doing some updates of the front page of our site in the next few days, and you can tell me if you think it is on track or not. True or false, it's hardly on OP though is it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Sorry but I just don't think the proposition that the cross is not central for pentecostals/charismatics hold up to scrutiny. I previously posted the NFI link but also how about here or here or here Yes there are some other church websites that are not as clear about the cross as they should be. In some cases that is accidental or lazyness in communication. In some other cases there is theological correction required. However that is almost certainly no more true than it is of non-pentecostal/charismatic churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
I have always thought that when Evangelicals refer to the cross, they are talking about the Cross of Christ and his shed blood, etc.

quote:

---

Depending on what you want to load into 'etc.', this is precisely what I mean, too.

quote:

---

Gracie: It would appear though, Gordon, that you have a rather different understanding of what "the cross" means, and that for you it includes "our cross" or our suffering as Christians on a daily basis. I am just not at all sure how central that is to an Evangelical understanding of the Gospel.

---

It's not central, any more than 'not committing murder' or 'selling all you have and giving to the poor' is central. Obedience is not the gospel, it is a necessary response to the gospel. Similarly, Christian suffering is not the gospel, it is an inseparable entailment of the gospel.

So no, I can't yet see that we have disagreed about an evangelical understanding of the cross—even though I may have said more about one necessary implication of the gospel than you have. I am stressing this necessary implication in response to Hillsong's apparent denial of suffering as a part of normal Christian experience.

quote:

---

Gracie: Another question: how many people equate evangelicalism with living a life of suffering?

quote:

---

Me: Not enough.

---

---

Gracie: <snip> but at the very least you do seem to be admitting that this idea is not commonly perceived to be at the heart of Evangelicalism.

---

Well, yes. That's why I don't want to debate the definition of 'evangelical' here, because as they say "wider still and wider, shall thy bounds be spread". The definition has broadened in the last 100 years in English speaking circles, and continues to broaden. I have a clear idea in my head of what 'evangelical' means, which is narrower than most but historically defensible (I believe). Whether this puts me in the category of anachronistic obscurantists or not, I don't know; more to the point, I don't want to confuse matters by running two discussions simultaneously.

So my claim about Hillsong on this thread is not that they are not evangelical (which will mean having another discussion on the meaning of 'evangelical'), but that the cross is virtually absent from their thinking and preaching, both in the sense of explaining the shed blood of Jesus and its meaning—justification, washing, propitiation, sanctification, glorification etc.—and one of its most necessary entailments, namely, a life characterized by suffering.

BTW, that suffering as a Christian is a necessary entailment of belief in the cross can be seen in Jesus' demand to "Take up your cross", as I've argued; and also in this astonishing verse: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col 1:24)

quote:

---

Me: Secondly, something that is true tends to get put into a doctrinal basis either because it is true and important, or true and annoying—or preferably, all of the above.

For example, the virgin birth is true and unimportant, but was put in to the UCCF doctrinal statement back in the 1930s in order to annoy liberals of the time.

---

Gracie: Are you sure that was the reason? The virgin birth has been in Christian confessions of faith for much longer than that.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Eutychus:
Whether this is a good thing or not is open to debate, my point is that it would appear that your own linked website apparently fails to qualify as evangelical by the definition you have given it here. Don't you think that should give you pause before declaring, apparently in a minority of one on this thread, that others who claim to be evangelical aren't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Sorry but I just don't think the proposition that the cross is not central for pentecostals/charismatics hold up to scrutiny. I previously posted the NFI link but also how about here or here or here Yes there are some other church websites that are not as clear about the cross as they should be. In some cases that is accidental or lazyness in communication. In some other cases there is theological correction required. However that is almost certainly no more true than it is of non-pentecostal/charismatic churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I haven't claimed that Hillsong are not evangelical on this thread,

---

quote:

---

So my claim about Hillsong on this thread is not that they are not evangelical (which will mean having another discussion on the meaning of 'evangelical'), but that the cross is virtually absent from their thinking and preaching

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

originally posted by Gracie:
Could you say specifically, what it is on the Hillsong website, which makes you say that they are not evangelical?

---

Yes, my fundamental objection is that the cross has become almost invisible [...]

---

quote:

---

I would be interested to see you raise these questions with the Hillsong UK person you've mentioned that you're in contact with. Would he say that if such teaching about suffering in the Christian life is not there it may represent a fundamental problem?

---

Well, I had already considered doing something like that, but considering how it went down last time I decided there wasn't much point.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
…Christian suffering is not the gospel, it is an inseparable entailment of the gospel.

So no, I can't yet see that we have disagreed about an evangelical understanding of the cross—even though I may have said more about one necessary implication of the gospel than you have. I am stressing this necessary implication in response to Hillsong's apparent denial of suffering as a part of normal Christian experience.

---

quote:

---

That's why I don't want to debate the definition of 'evangelical' here, because as they say "wider still and wider, shall thy bounds be spread". The definition has broadened in the last 100 years in English speaking circles, and continues to broaden. I have a clear idea in my head of what 'evangelical' means, which is narrower than most but historically defensible (I believe). Whether this puts me in the category of anachronistic obscurantists or not, I don't know; more to the point, I don't want to confuse matters by running two discussions simultaneously.

---

quote:

---

BTW, that suffering as a Christian is a necessary entailment of belief in the cross can be seen in Jesus' demand to "Take up your cross", as I've argued; and also in this astonishing verse: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col 1:24)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
entailment (?)

---

quote:

---

I would say that historically it has been people in the Catholic tradition that have been attached to vows of poverty and been into suffering as something that has intrinsic value.

---

quote:

---

That being said, I think that to over-emphasize the importance of suffering and to deny the promises of blessing is just as much a perversion of the Gospel as over-emphasizing the latter

---

quote:

---

I'm finding it difficult to see how we can get a satisfactory answer to the OP, without defining 'evangelical'. Your original claim, which led me to start this thread was that the Australian AOG Pentecostal denomination is not Evangelical. Maybe what you mean is that they're not Evangelical by your personal definition, which is not open to discussion?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by me in Hell: I'm being Hellish. I certainly don't feel inclined to take up the cudgels on behalf of my definition of 'evangelical', although it seems to be a bit tighter than some here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, I'm more than happy to tell you what I think an evangelical is, and why I think it, and why I personally prefer this definition over the many currently available alternatives… I'm not inclined to be a word fascist. I use a particular definition of 'evangelical' which I believe is both clear and defensible.

---

quote:

---

If it helps discussion about important questions such as 'What is the gospel?' and 'How do I get right with God?' and 'How does God glorify his name in the light of our rebellion against his grace?', then we can talk about whether my definition is a good one or not.

---

quote:

---

I honestly don't have a lot invested in carrying the label 'evangelical'. If on my next visit to France, Euty were to alert the border authorities and they were to confiscate my little card that says "Gordon Cheng, editor and evangelical", I would shed a few quiet tears, but probably more because I had scribbled someone's ph no on the back than because I like the label 'evangelical'.

---

I really don't think the French border authorities would be interested in having it.

quote:

---

Suffering, like good works, follow from belief in the gospel as surely as day follows night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
OK, so what exactly is your definition of Evangelical?

---

I would subscribe to the UCCF doctrinal basis linked earlier. If someone asked me to write a DB from scratch, I would add statements that specifically exclude the Hillsong-Pentecostal notion of prosperity and physical wellbeing as a near-certain indicator of God's approval and blessing. I would indicate that suffering rather than prosperity was to be an expected accompaniment of trust in Christ.

Also and FWIW I would almost certainly include a statement that specifically excluded N.T. Wright's understanding of the nature of justification, and reaffirmed a traditional Lutheran understanding. (If you know what I'm talking about, you know what I'm talking about; if not it's off-topic so we don't really need to go into it).

Here is an article I helped edit in October last year that gives a really helpful argument against conceptual inflation of the word 'evangelical'. It will possibly show more clearly what my view is and why I hold it. My understanding of evangelicalism lines up closely with that of the author (Dr. Mark Thompson), although I suspect he is nicer about it than I am. I am a nasty person, so maybe don't take everything I say as representative of everyone else who thinks like me

My basic plea is not for a new or narrower definition of 'evangelical', but a return to classical definition that takes the doctrinal assertions associated with it seriously.

May I tell you a story to illustrate what I mean? Probably about 10 years ago now I was working with the Melbourne University Christian Union and we were approached by the representative of a charismatic group. He was a man who (I have no reason at all to doubt) was a convinced and committed Christian. In the course of our discussion about co-operation (something I wasn't entirely opposed to, it may surprise you to know), we began talking about doctrinal distinctives. His group's statement of belief mentioned something to the effect that the mark of a mature Christian believer was an experience of the Holy Spirit, subsequent to conversion, that was necessarily evidenced by speaking in tongues.

My comment was that although I could see how people might have an experience of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion, and indeed that I hoped that they might have many, ongoing, experiences, I couldn't agree that the particular experience of "speaking in tongues" was necessary. I knew that in his group, people were not allowed to be leaders unless they had signed that doctrinal basis and had themselves spoken in tongues.

His suggestion to me was that for the sake of co-operation in a particular activity, they would be more than happy to simply delete this statement.

Now let's assume (and I did) that he was not advocating a position of dishonesty, whereby you (or whoever) simply conceal what you think very important for the express purpose of achieving your political goal. Two observations nonetheless follow.

The first observation is that this proposed course of action seemed to value a particular joint activity more highly than a particular distinctive belief.

Whether you are sympathetic to this or not, my own view is that evangelical fundamental beliefs, such as that outlined in the UCCF DB, should never be glossed over or obscured for the sake of, well, anything. You stick those beliefs in because they are basic, and/or because they help to exclude a particular set of beliefs that are dangerous or unhelpful to christian living. And if you weren't interested in declaring what was basic or excluding what was dangerous, you either wouldn't put the statment in at all, or you might even go so far as to say "I can't stand doctrinal bases, I'm just going to call myself a Christan and believe the Bible."

That this other fellow was prepared to do gloss over one of the most basic charismatic beliefs (according to him, not me) suggested to me that he held those particular beliefs less lightly than I hold mine. That's more an observation than a value judgement, by the way.

The second observation is that if he could easily sign something that was pretty much the UCCF DB without compromising his own beliefs, then

• (a) he was mistaken, because the UCCF DB on the Holy Spirit implies quite a bit more about charismatic theology than is ordinarily recognized and
• (b) (a) being the case, what is implicit about charismatic theology in the UCCF DB should IMHO be made explicit, so that it is clear that charismatics (as defined by the statement of belief I just referred to) are not evangelicals (as defined, for example, by the UCCF DB)

quote:

---

I do however believe that people who try to live for the Gospel will be persecuted and will suffer for the Gospel. I think that is what Paul was talking about not just some random suffering.

---

quote:

---

Rom. 8:16-17 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

---

• Subscribing to the UCCF doctrinal basis.
• Not being Pentecostal or Charismatic.
• Not subscribing to health and wealth teachings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The representative of a charismatic group... [whose] group's statement of belief mentioned something to the effect that the mark of a mature Christian believer was an experience of the Holy Spirit, subsequent to conversion, that was necessarily evidenced by speaking in tongues… could easily sign something that was pretty much the UCCF DB without compromising his own beliefs…

---

quote:

---

If someone asked me to write a DB from scratch, I would add statements that specifically exclude the Hillsong-Pentecostal notion of prosperity and physical wellbeing as a near-certain indicator of God's approval and blessing. I would indicate that suffering rather than prosperity was to be an expected accompaniment of trust in Christ.

---

quote:

---

My basic plea is not for a new or narrower definition of 'evangelical', but a return to classical definition that takes the doctrinal assertions associated with it seriously.

---

quote:

---

Whether you are sympathetic to this or not, my own view is that evangelical fundamental beliefs, such as that outlined in the UCCF DB, should never be glossed over or obscured for the sake of, well, anything. You stick those beliefs in because they are basic, and/or because they help to exclude a particular set of beliefs that are dangerous or unhelpful to christian living.

---

quote:

---

what is implicit about charismatic theology in the UCCF DB should IMHO be made explicit, so that it is clear that charismatics (as defined by the statement of belief I just referred to) are not evangelicals (as defined, for example, by the UCCF DB)

---

quote:

---

But suffering is suffering, and although the reasons for it vary, while we live in this world we won't as Christians be exempted from any single part of it. And when we do suffer, we surely can't believe in the sovereignty and providence of God and believe the any of it is random. Indeed, Hebrews 12 assures us that we suffer as sons experiencing the love of our Father and his gracious disciplining—which would even include the suffering that Peter mentioned, the suffering for wrongdoing.

---

quote:

---

[Christ]… suffered and died; we will suffer in him and with him. It really is everywhere in the New Testament, and anyone who wants to emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit rightly simply can't deny it...

---

quote:

---

The second observation is that if he could easily sign something that was pretty much the UCCF DB without compromising his own beliefs, then


(a) he was mistaken, because the UCCF DB on the Holy Spirit implies quite a bit more about charismatic theology than is ordinarily recognized and
(b) (a) being the case, what is implicit about charismatic theology in the UCCF DB should IMHO be made explicit, so that it is clear that charismatics (as defined by the statement of belief I just referred to) are not evangelicals (as defined, for example, by the UCCF DB)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
It is still my contention that here Paul is talking about suffering for the sake of the gospel. I really do not believe that he means that all Christians should be permanently ill and broke, though for sure some will not be spared that condition.

---

quote:

---

Is Gordon really claiming that all Christians must suffer? That someone who seems on the whole to have an easy life is therefore probably not saved?

---

Well, that's how I've been reading it. Very depressing thought.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Is Gordon really claiming that all Christians must suffer? That someone who seems on the whole to have an easy life is therefore probably not saved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Ken asked

quote:

---

Is Gordon really claiming that all Christians must suffer? That someone who seems on the whole to have an easy life is therefore probably not saved?

---

Well, that's how I've been reading it. Very depressing thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now I'm confused. Is there any Christian who doesn't suffer?

---

quote:

---

indicate that suffering rather than prosperity was to be an expected accompaniment of trust in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Now I'm confused. Is there any Christian who doesn't suffer? I've never struck one yet. Lots of the suffering is kept under wraps (mental illness, infertility, bad relationships, etc.) but none at all???

---

Everyone suffers - illness, deprivation, poverty, bad relationships, whatever. But Gordon seems to me to be saying that Christians especially must suffer, or else they are not proper Christians. So if you are fairly happy, fit and well, no particular problems, then you are not a 'real'Christian.

But as everyone suffers at some time throughout their life, where is the difference between being a Christian and not being a Christian?

I don't think I've quite grasped his argument.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
But as everyone suffers at some time throughout their life, where is the difference between being a Christian and not being a Christian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

This statement about the cross is OK as far as it goes, but can you think of any branch or sub-branch of Christianity (Eastern or Western, liberal, catholic, orthodox, ecumenical, charismatic, evangelical, universalist, neo-orthodox, montanist, donatist, gnostic, mystic, or _______?) that would dispute what is said here?

If yes, who?

---

Well, right off the top of my head, official Catholic teaching for one would not agree that "Jesus is the only one who can reconcile us to God, as they talk about Mary being Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sorry for double post. Have a read of this article in today's Australian and tell me there isn't something obscene about leaders using the church to minimize the tax implications of owning luxury properties.

At the heart of prosperity gospel type thinking is, frankly, just truckloads of money. Jesus impoverished himself for us at the cross; too often we (and sadly, I don't exclude evangelicals) seek to materially enrich themselves through the gospel. At least evangelicals would want to suggest that this is not the way of the cross, and hopefully other Christians too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim
[tangent] We most certainly do not. That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church - and never has been.[/tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim
[tangent] We most certainly do not. That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church - and never has been.[/tangent]

---

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, Duo Seraphim. I did check before posting and found many websites referring to Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix, many of them in French such as this one. On closer inspection this morning I discovered that this is not yet official Catholic teaching, but that there is a movement underway to have it made into an ex cathedra pronunciation, in a similar way to the assumption in 1950. I found discussion on this, in English here. I could be wrong here, but I have always thought that the position of Mary was one of the differences between evangelicals and Catholics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
So GC - any chance of answering the question about the UCCF DB? It doesn't help the discussion as a whole if you just ignore bits you don't like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I thought the DB was designed to hold together as many types of non-liberal protestants as possible.

---

quote:

---

Could you spell out what you mean about the UCCF DB excluding charismatics? Maybe that will make things clearer.

---

quote:

---

c. The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.

<snip>

h. The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ.

i. The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated. He makes them increasingly Christlike in character and behaviour and gives them power for their witness in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

The question put here will probably seem quite fiddly to almost anyone who doesn't think of themselves as an evangelical, or even as an evangelical in the sense that the CICCU was advocating at the time. But to the evangelicals at the time the question was worth going out on a limb and then beginning to saw— so important was it to them.

---

quote:

---

Here are three statements taken from the DB that I believe exclude Pentecostal views such as those represented by the Hillsong site:

c. The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.


h. The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ.

i. The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated. He makes them increasingly Christlike in character and behaviour and gives them power for their witness in the world.

ISTM that Pentecostals will at one and the same time insist that point c. of the DB is true, whilst also holding that the Holy Spirit not only can but frequently does and may be expected to speak to us through our personal experience and independently of Scripture. I believe, by contrast, that UCCF point c. necessarily implies the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture; which doctrine excludes appeal to authority outside Scripture. If I were developing this argument further I would lay particular emphasis on the words 'supreme authority' and 'all matters' in the point, as well as pointing to what Scripture itself asserted regarding its sufficiency, for example in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I would also argue that the manner in which charismatics frequently appeal to certain types of 'experience' effectively undercuts scriptural sufficiency.

---

quote:

---

Points h. and i., taken together, effectively exclude a second blessing theology of the sort held to by my friend earlier mentioned, in that they insist that the Holy Spirit operates in the believer from the point of conversion (point h.) and that from this point on, he begins his work in them to make them like Christ and effective for ministry (point i.). By contrast, the more traditional charismatic 'second-blessing' views locate effectiveness for ministry from the point where the subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit is manifested by speaking in tongues.

---

quote:

---

But what has been retained within a great deal of Pentecostalism (Hillsong no exception) is the sense that what we received in the gospel when we first trusted Jesus and his death and resurrection is not sufficient, and that in the message of the Bible we do not have the full glories of the Christian life already given (past tense) to us through the work of the Holy Spirit

---

quote:

---

Now it may be responded that such a reading of the DB is not at all obvious at first sight. My response is that this understanding, especially when we look over the historical context, is implicit. I also think it wouldn't hurt for it now to be made explicit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[Technical mode on]Putting it technically, there is a clash between the usually over-realized Pentecostal eschatology, and the evangelical view, which emphaisezes that escathology is anticipated in the Old Testament, inaugurated in the death of Christ and only realized at the final judgement.[/Technical Mode off])

---

quote:

---

the coming King

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
can you <snip> provide a historical example of an over-realised eschatology that did not spring from a fundamentally evangelical theology and ecclesiology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology

---

quote:

---

the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology

---

quote:

---

The Bible agrees with me in every way. I am the only person to take it seriously; if the rest of you understood the Bible properly you would agree with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology

---

In the light of what I've understood of your definition of evangelical, can you explain what you mean by this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
in evangelical understanding, only the Bible really gets to define what 'evangelical' is.

---

quote:

---

the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology

---

quote:

---

This is achieved, for evangelicals, only by a process of returning to Scripture constantly and checking questions and conclusions according to what is found there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
in evangelical understanding, only the Bible really gets to define what 'evangelical' is.

---

I think I understand this. But saying this (which I read as you saying that evangelicals attempt to be biblical) is not at all the same as saying that

quote:

---

the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology

---

which is the other way around.

quote:

---

This is achieved, for evangelicals, only by a process of returning to Scripture constantly and checking questions and conclusions according to what is found there.

---

Do you really think no Pentecostals (to confine myself to the OP) arrived at their conclusions by this process?

---

quote:

---

If (as it appears to me here) your definition of "evangelical" extends only to those who reach your own conclusions (or ones very similar to them), what do you make of those who apply this methodology and who see themselves as evangelical despite coming to different conclusions? And where do you draw the line?

---

quote:

---

In similar vein but going beyond the OP, I'm intrigued to know what you (as, according to your profile, an Anglican) consider the "fundamentally evangelical" ecclesiology of the Bible to be. So much so that I'm tempted to start a thread entitled "are anabaptists evangelical?"

---

The Bible's ecclesiology is congregationalist and so am I Anabaptist? Depends what you mean. The ones at Munster in the 1520s probably weren't. But you're right, that's another thread. See you in two weeks, and have a nice whatever it is you're having!
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is achieved, for evangelicals, only by a process of returning to Scripture constantly and checking questions and conclusions according to what is found there… My understanding of Pentecostal theology is that at least partly, it begins with experience and builds its theology from this basis. I don't mean that others don't; I mean that this is frequently explicit to their approach. There was a revival at Azusa St in 1907; it was accompanied by speaking in tongues—this experience is something all Christians would be blessed by.

---

quote:

---

It's really saying that in evangelical understanding, only the Bible really gets to define what 'evangelical' is. Membership in a group that claims the name 'evangelical' doesn't cut it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

Gordon, can I ask you again why it is so important to you to exclude pentecostals and charismatics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
GC:

quote:

---

It's really saying that in evangelical understanding, only the Bible really gets to define what 'evangelical' is. Membership in a group that claims the name 'evangelical' doesn't cut it.

---

This still sounds as though you are claiming that only your type of evangelical takes the Bible seriously..

---

quote:

---

All sorts of Christians base their theology on the Bible, and come to a whole range of different conclusions

---

quote:

---

Earlier on you seemed to want to appropriate the cross to your bit of Christianity, now you seem to want to do the same with the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Only God can do that, and for us to step into that role without warrant would be a blasphemy and presumption.

---

Is there ever a circumstance when any of us would have such a 'warrant'?

God forbid he'd ever give one to me!
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
Isn't this thread proof that denominations (and labels in general when attached to people) are the invention of Satan?

It doesn't matter whether you call Pentecostals evangelical or not - the real issue (for everyone)is: are they going God's way?

Now, if someone can give me a good reason for attaching labels to different Christians (besides "knowing what to expect if you go to that church on a Sunday") do let me know, but as far as I can tell, labels lead simply to assumptions being made that may be wrong, misunderstandings, confusion and general disillusionment.

I liked it when it was just Christians ("followers of The Way") and other people.
 

---

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
Part of the problem here seems to be a lack of agreement whether labels describe mutually exclusive boxes or over-lapping boxes. I personally visualise a Venn diagram with over-lapping shapes or circles. To cater for all the labels and all the over-laps you might need a multi-dimensional diagram!
I have certainly known charismatic evangelicals, charismatic catholics (Roman or other wise), low catholics, high catholics, evangelicals who appreciate high worship (e.g. those who attend local evangelical church but go to occasional coral services at a Cathedral or College) etc etc,
I don’t understand why anyone would want to deny anyone else a descriptive label. If there is confusion then the label can be qualified by another one.
If someone described them self as a low church evangelical Pentecostal, I think I would get a good idea of what to expect. Equally a charismatic high church catholic gives a pretty good idea too. As does a conservative evangelical church, a liberal low catholic church or a conservative high (anglo-) catholic church.
You cannot pigeonhole a church with a single word label that only describes a few aspects of church belief or practice
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Agreed Angelfish and Merchant Trader. Labels can never describe the totality of a person; but they can be useful shorthand to give a rough idea of some area of that person's life. I reckon this applies to any kind of label - political, writing styles, music etc. Take them as a full description and they will only confuse, take them as a commonly agreed abbreviation and they can be useful.

This is where my confusion arises with GC. He seems to want to redfine a widely accepted term, but is being rather coy about his reasons for doing so.
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
I think GC is worried that if the label "evangelical" is allowed to attach to anyone that does not exactly fit his own views (as he regards himself as evangelical) then people will start to think he holds the views of the others who have been given the same label. Maybe GC needs to re-name himself a "cruci-centric evangelical" or something of that sort, so that his particular emphasis is apparent.

Gordon, do excuse me if I am wrong - very presumptious of me to assume I know where you are coming from.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I liked it when it was just Christians ("followers of The Way") and other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charis:
Sorry for jumping in midstream but one little bit caught my attention:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Only God can do that, and for us to step into that role without warrant would be a blasphemy and presumption.

---

Is there ever a circumstance when any of us would have such a 'warrant'?

God forbid he'd ever give one to me!

---

If we worked out from the Bible that Judas was in hell, we would have warrant to say that 'Judas is in Hell'.

Don't worry, I'm not about to TICTH anybody on these august boards
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Brekky over? Fam fed? Any chance of an answ this arvo?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Brekky over? Fam fed? Any chance of an answ this arvo?

---

quote:

---

Gordon appears to define Evangelicalism by its cross-centeredness if I have understood him correctly. Personally I don’t think that cross-centeredness alone is sufficient to classify theology as being Evangelical. I would add, at the very least, the resurrection, the ascension, and Jesus as the only mediator between God and man.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, my question is : Is it true to say that Pentecostals do not preach the cross. I have always thought that Pentecostals do preach the cross, even if they preach some other things as well that other Evangelicals don’t.

---

quote:

---

An element of this is a phrase I have heard, by which they say that “healing is in the atonement”, based on Isaiah 53:5 – “with his stripes we are healed”. I don’t understand how they could preach that without preaching the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahdo:
Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such. Waving arms around and gabbling in a 'spiritual' manner not only avoids the real application of the cross, it gives an impression of spirituality, and often feeds the pride of the 'performer' (and performance it is).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jahdo:
[qb] Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such. Waving arms around and gabbling in a 'spiritual' manner not only avoids the real application of the cross, it gives an impression of spirituality, and often feeds the pride of the 'performer' (and performance it is).

---

quote:

---

I suppose you've been to a Pentecostal church, had dialogue with pentecostals etc. and are thus speaking from a position of non-total-ignorance?

---

quote:

---

I'd advise you to think very carefully before making sweeping, judgmental statements like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QB] [QUOTE]So Jahdo, on the basis of one verse you have constructed an understanding of Christianity that enables you to be dismissive of thousands of other believers?

---

quote:

---

The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For Jahdo

quote:

---

Welcome to SofF.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

IMO mr_ricarno's advice was well-intentioned, not a put down.

---

What reason do I have to believe you?

quote:

---

Let me give you one example of the sort of problems you will face if you keep on posting sweeping assertions such as

[QUOTE]The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course.

---

I suggest you look at this link to Denzinger's comments on papal infallibility. Particularly the biblical section. And don't assume I'm a Catholic or agree with Denzinger. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such.

---

This seems to me a sweeping and unwarranted condemnation. The Bible also has a lot to say about the Christian's duty to praise God at all times; indeed it could be argued that this is a much bigger theme than "fear and trembling". If you really want to claim (which I'm sure you don't) that Pentecostalism is non-Christian, or even Satanic, you would need a lot more evidence than just Phil 2.12.

(What is it at the moment? First I have to defend Pentecostalism against GC and now against Jahdo. It's not even as though I am a Pentecostal - just a happy Bible believing liberal )
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
(Purgatory hosts; may I please have a little latitude for this tangent?)

I dont see how you have justified your original assertion. Do you still maintain that the whole Catholic church is based on one verse of scripture? Particularly given Denzinger's not at all unreasonable proposition that the uniqueness of the Petrine role is based, biblically, on three separate scriptures, each of which comes from an independent scriptural source (i.e different authorships for the Matthew, Luke and John scriptures)? Where is his argument circular - and how have the other two scriptures he quoted been dismissed as circularity?

It isn't "obvious" to me that Catholicity is just based biblically on Matthew 16 v 18-19. And, by the way, that is 2 verses anyway. So as I read your posts, you have overstated your case in your assertion - and have resorted to rhetoric in your reply, without addressing the key weakness in your statement, that the Roman church is based on a single verse of scripture. So, which single verse are you referring to, and why are the Luke and John verses either not significant, or their interpretation circular?

A plain reading of all three suggests strongly that Peter is being given a special leadership role by Jesus. I presume you believe in plain reading of scripture as the best means of interpretation?

By the way, I am a nonconformist protestant with a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture and I do not believe in the infallibility of popes.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
And why do you want to bring murder into the picture?

quote:

---

I have not yet started to murder Pentecostalists. Perhaps it would impress if I did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QB] Jahdo, my criticism of you went like this. [QUOTE] You made a reference to one verse

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahdo:
it was alleged that that verse was the only justification for my stance. That is a falsehood, and I am not going to debate with people who talk like that.

---

quote:

---

The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course.

---

quote:

---

When you write a post that does not contain the word 'you', Wanderer, I may consider it fit for debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] (Purgatory hosts; may I please have a little latitude for this tangent?)
[QUOTE] I dont see how you have justified your original assertion. Do you still maintain that the whole Catholic church is based on one verse of scripture? Particularly given Denzinger's not at all unreasonable proposition that the uniqueness of the Petrine role is based, biblically, on three separate scriptures, each of which comes from an independent scriptural source (i.e different authorships for the Matthew, Luke and John scriptures)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QUOTE] I tackled you on that one verse because that is the only justification you have offered so far for your views. If you have more, please present them.

---

When you have duly apologised for your falsehood, I might well do just that.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Hi Jahdo.

One of the things that some of us enjoy and value about this ship is that is such a diverse range of views and opinions on it. The vast majority of these views and opinions have supporters on the ship who are able to argue for it intelligently and coherently.

Very few things are uniformly regarded as being "obviously" true here and, most of the time, someone will disagree with you/me/whoever. Otherwise, how could there be any debate?

I expect there will even be people who disagree with what I have said here!
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Errrr - what falsehood do you want me to apologise for? (Sorry: for what falsehood should I apologise?)
 

---

Posted by Jahdo (# 9835) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Hi Jahdo.

---

quote:

---

One of the things that some of us enjoy and value about this ship is that is such a diverse range of views and opinions on it.

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of these views and opinions have supporters on the ship who are able to argue for it intelligently and coherently.

---

What are we to surmise from that remark? That I have not argued intelligently and coherently? Have you anything to say on the subject of 'pentecostalism'? Or is this thread to be devoted to Jahdo, personal attacks thereon?

[fixed code]

[ 04. August 2005, 16:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Host hat on

Jahdo, you've already been told on another thread in Purgatory, "Either participate in the debate or don't. But kindly desist from your current unhelpful attitude." The hosts read every post and will smite anyone posting personal attacks in Purgatory. When we haven't done so, you may assume that what has been posted is allowable on this board. No one has indulged in personal attack against you; what you've seen are simply robust attacks upon your statements and the positions you're taking. If you are not prepared to defend them, don't post them.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Jahdo - I have made no personal attack on you, as RuthW said. I was merely giving you some friendly advice, as you stated that you were "somewhat astonished" that you had been asked to defend certain aspects of your viewpoint. Please note that I included myself in my original post to this thread, so that it was not just aimed at you or soley about you. That is all.

As to your impolite implications concerning where, when, if and why I should post, I am afraid that I can make no friendly or jovial reply to them. So I will leave it at that.

Papio (who hopes he has not trod on RuthW's toes).
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Yes Papio, I thought you were just being friendly. But then I'm mired in falsehood, so you shouldn't listen to a word I say.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Papio (who hopes he has not trod on RuthW's toes).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahdo:
<snip>
I did not see that; if people give websites as reference they must not expect people to hunt around. But it makes no difference: I am well aware of RC arguments. All other Roman suppositions about Peter's status hinge on Matthew (or rather, a strange and blasphemous interpretation of Matthew), without which there would be nothing concrete at all to hang their idea onto.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jahdo:
<snip>
[qb] I did not see that; if people give websites as reference they must not expect people to hunt around. But it makes no difference: I am well aware of RC arguments. All other Roman suppositions about Peter's status hinge on Matthew (or rather, a strange and blasphemous interpretation of Matthew), without which there would be nothing concrete at all to hang their idea onto.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

My post pointed you to the biblical content of that part of the site. It is very easy to find.

---

quote:

---

It is not clear that you are aware of RC arguments

---

quote:

---

but you are clearly aware of arguments against RC arguments.

---

quote:

---

Believe me, it will not hurt you to look carefully at the Denzinger arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

The site has good rules about reproducing large quotations from authors which is why we provide links to websites instead. (You should see them in colour in the text.)

---

I have had a look. One can distil (or copy and paste) the salient arguments into a few lines, e.g.:

---

quote:

---

Can you explain how the text and context make clear Peter's primacy, and his succession?

Of the triple command, we read:

[QUOTE] there is no denying that the Petrine and papal claims are more clearly supported by the Gospels

---

quote:

---

It is also clear from Acts (particularly Acts 2) and Galatians that Peter did indeed have a special and significant leadership role in the early church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(Purgatory hosts; may I please have a little latitude for this tangent?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jahdo

Suggest you review the Petrine primacy thread and see if you want to participate/continue discussion there. I've noted your comments and will send you a PM.

---

quote:

---

However, another point that struck me last night. As well as excluding Pentecostalism, GC wants to exclude NT Wright's understanding of the atonement. Leaving aside the details of that position, let us assume that Wright has arrived at this position by careful study of the Scriptures and that he believes his understanding to be that closest to the thinking of Paul. In which case, how can someone who lets the Bible determine their thinking not be an evangelical? Is it possible that a GCE is not actually led by the Bible, but has an agenda that they want the Bible to follow?

---

quote:

---

I think the problem is that evangelicalism is a much wider spectrum than some evangelicals give credit. There are liberals and conservatives, charismatics and noncharismatics, nonconformists and episcopalians. I think there are also catholic and protestant evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahdo:

quote:

---

IMO mr_ricarno's advice was well-intentioned, not a put down.

---

What reason do I have to believe you?

---

Cripes, sorry folks I went away from the computer for a day and look what's happened.

Jahdo, my comment was not at all intended as a put-down, but was rather a friendly piece of advice from someone who's been on the ship for a year and has made a lot of etiquette bloopers in his time. Apologies if it was misconstrued in any way - I'd never post anything insulting or abusive, at least not in Purgatory .
 

---

Posted by Jahdo (# 9835) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Any chance that we could get back to discussing whether Pentecostals are Evangelical?

---

quote:

---

We ask member churches and organisations to give their assent to the Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith. We also expect that they will have been established for at least two years and that they are in good standing with other local evangelical churches and/or organisations, abiding by the Evangelical Relationships Commitment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merchant Trader:


If they define themselves as Evangelical and the majority of Evangelical churches are happy to accept them into fellowship as such - who are we to disagree ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I think on grounds of context that when the Bible mentions 'tongues' it generally means 'foreign human languages'. But I don't mind arguing the toss on the basis of a study of Scripture, and when we do that, we are approaching the Scriptures in an evangelical way.

This move from Scripture to the interpretation of experience is a move in the opposite direction to the move made by the type of Pentecostalism we are talking about in the case of Azusa St.

---

quote:

---

Proof positive of the authenticity of this xenolalia and xenographia was seen in the reaction of a sailor named Jack who had been a prisoner of an African tribe. Jack was so amazed at her ability to converse with him in an unidentified dialect that he became a Christian. Frank Sandford interviewed a clergyman from St. Louis who had recently been with the missionary party in England:

He declared there was 'no doubt whatever that the work was of God,' and added, They have now about thirteen different dialects.' He related how she had heard Africans on the street talking their native dialects, and understood what they said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However, another point that struck me last night. As well as excluding Pentecostalism, GC wants to exclude NT Wright's understanding of the atonement. Leaving aside the details of that position, let us assume that Wright has arrived at this position by careful study of the Scriptures and that he believes his understanding to be that closest to the thinking of Paul. In which case, how can someone who lets the Bible determine their thinking not be an evangelical? Is it possible that a GCE is not actually led by the Bible, but has an agenda that they want the Bible to follow? …
It is relevant here because my understanding of Pentecostals is that they are following what they see in the Bible, and seeking to have their experience match what is recorded in Scripture. That sounds deeply evangelical to me. Or are you only evangelical if you find the "right" answers in the Bible - and who decides what is "right"?

---

quote:

---

One answer is, I guess, that since I think my own reading of Paul represents a historically grounded and theologically accurate and sensitive understanding I naturally hope that other Christians of whatever tradition will find what I say fruitful, and I grieve that anyone should get into trouble in their own denomination, whatever that may be, for embracing a viewpoint which ought at the very least to be within anybody’s limits of orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If N T isn't both orthodox and evangelical on the atonement, I'll eat hay with the donkeys.

---

Well he's certainly not Orthodox (big "O"). I'll be jiggered if I can figure out what his theology of atonement is from that sermon or speech or whatever it is, let alone what he thinks "faith" is. And the whole "Reformation uber alles" attitude underlying his whole speech -- there is no indication that he knows that anything was written between when Paul put down his pen and Tyndale lifted his -- I find tiresome and completely irrelevant to my faith.

He sure is stentorian though. Gotta give him that.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mousethief

I've read a lot of N T Wright and was reflecting on his summary of his own writings, not just the content of the talk/sermon/speech.

Terms are difficult here - when I use the word orthodox (as opposed to Orthodox) I use it in the sense of orthodox reformed (which I appreciate is heterodox for you).

It might be worth another thread - but N T Wright's link between the atonement and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 gets close to the heart of the reformed orthodox understanding of the crucifixion, I think. This extract is probably key. My only present source of Orthodox understanding is Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Way - and what he says in the section "Obedient unto Death" in the chapter "God as Man" is a close summary of what I believe - and I think what N T Wright believes (there may be some differences over "He descended into Hell").

So I am a bit confused as to why, on the atonement at least, his orthodoxy isn't Orthodox. Can you help? We could explore it here briefly as a tangent, or maybe in a separate thread "Understandings of the Atonement".
 

---

Posted by mr_ricarno (# 6064) on :
 
May I recommend a new thread? We're still waiting (with baited breath) for Gordo's Meisterwerk on The Definition Of 'Evangelical'.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
[pedant hat on] That's "bated" I think you'll find, mr_ricarno, at least I'm hoping so. I may be conservative but I don't think I'm fishy [/pedant hat off]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Gordon Cheng

Neither do I - but I think mr_ricarno is fishing!

For Mousethief and any others interested - I'm going to take mr_ricarno's advice and leave this thread open for Gordon to pronounce.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
I'm not Gordon or the Wanderer, but here's a speech from +Wright earlier this year. Interestingly, he directly addresses the criticisms some evangelicals have of his view of the atonement.

It's in section 2, "No Other Lord," although the entire address is well worth reading.

---

quote:

---

That formal principle is, of course, a total commitment to scripture itself, over against all human traditions, all structures created by human reason, all abstractions from the actual text. Of course, I read scripture within various traditions, I use reason in thinking about it, I make my own abstractions from the text as I go along. I am not a naive positivist, as some appear to think. But at every point one must come back to the text itself, the whole text, and in the last analysis nothing but the text.

---

quote:

---

It is therefore bizarre to be told, in a recent book criticizing me on this and on several other counts, that my statements remain ‘vague’, just because I do not subscribe to a particular Reformed way of talking about imputed righteousness, about which we shall have more to say later, and just because I, like Paul himself in many passages, highlight the Christus Victor theme rather than penal substitution, even though when you ask how the powers of evil were defeated Paul’s answer is of course that God condemned them. Again, I invoke the Tyndale principle: I am determined to read exactly what is there in scripture, not to miss a thing on the one hand but not to insert things either into texts which do not state them.

(Emphases added.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[pedant hat on] That's "bated" I think you'll find, mr_ricarno, at least I'm hoping so. I may be conservative but I don't think I'm fishy [/pedant hat off]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If you start saying that there are some "correct" readings of scripture that must be adhered to in order to be "sound", you are in a curious position. Even if your "correct" reading is derived from Calvin, or some other Reformer, it seems to me that you are setting up some authority over the Bible, in a very similar way to the magesterium, or teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Which is one of the things that those same Reformers were protesting against of course.

---

Best piece of analytical logic that I have seen all day!

The reason that I adhere to Hooker's via media is that I have never understood how we can fully be sure what scripture says without reference to what reason inspired by the Holy Spirit says and without reference to what other Christians think/have thought i.e. Tradition/Authority of the Church. But if an Evangelical is rejected as such by other Evangelicals because he disagrees with others interpretation of scripture; it becomes only a question of which authority rather than whether Evangelicals accept any authority outside scripture.

I am still waiting for the definition of Evangelical which differs from the Evangelical Alliance. I can’t think that +Wright could be excluded from any definition. However, the discussion about teaching authority does put another thought in my mind – in some churches, which I would otherwise class as Evangelical, a lot of authority is claimed for the leadership. I don’t know about Pentecostals but I have seen this in some charismatic groups some of which have modern day Apostles who presumably do have teaching authority. But if this rule exclude folk from being Evangelical then it might exclude some mainstream conservative Evangelical churches by accident.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Many thanks for the kind words MT. I am still hoping that GC will return here one day as I would still like to know what his definition of a GCE is.

The observation I made above was certainly not intended as a criticism of all evangelicals; just of a possible flaw I might have seen in GC's approach.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Gordon said on the Oakhill Mafia thread that he was cutting himself short there in order to have time to compose his answer for this thread. I'll be interested, although it really makes no odds to me whether someone is a Evangelical™ or not, being myself a fluffy semi-universalist in the Liberal Bunny Warren.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Wright:

We used one of his books in a New Testament course in college long ago. I don't remember details; but IIRC he was more liberal than my fundamentalist church, and much more conservative than many mainstream folks.

Which would put him approximately in the evangelical camp.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If someone prayerfully, honestly and intelligently studies the Bible can they arrive at a position which is not evangelical? Or, to put it another way, are all evangleicals led by the Bible? Or do some lead the Bible to the "right" conclusion, and who then has determined what is "right"?

---

"Yes" to the first and last questions. in any denomination/church. "Theoretically" to the second question.

People of goodwill can come to totally different answers on just about anything.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
I've read what I could find of +Wright's comments on the Atonement, and I, like others, can't see why it isn't considered evangelical. Can anyone offer some ideas?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Gordon Cheng

It would be nice to hear from you ....but I'm not fishing. Oh I dont know ...

Without wishing to put words into your mouth, is your problem that + N T Wright, although including PSA views in his understanding of atonement, also shows some assent to a varying strand? To put it more simply perhaps, do you think an evangelical must be an exclusively PSA believer? (I dont want to saddle up a Dead Horse either).
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Gordon

Sorry for the double post - I've just caught up on the "Atonement" thread and have a better understanding of your POV from that.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
In response to some of the requests by The Wanderer and others I am going to try to restate what my definition of evangelicalism I and why I would take the view that Pentecostalism as represented by Hillsong is not evangelical. (I'll save any discussion of NT Wright for another thread, if you don't mind)

By way of caution:

1. I don’t claim that non-evangelicals aren’t Christian.
2. I don’t even claim that evangelicals (as defined by me or anyone) are necessarily Christian. There is such a thing as hypocrisy.

Therefore this is to me a second-order discussion aimed primarily at clarity rather than including or excluding people from those who are saved or loved by God. In the rest of this post, unless otherwise indicated, I’m using evangelical according to my understanding of the word —whilst acknowledging that there are other understandings of the word, and that my understanding whilst defensible, may not even be the best contemporary definition.

So in what follows, I am providing the outline to how I understand evangelicalism, and why I think Pentecostalism as represented by hillsong is not evangelical:


**************
Definition: Ultimately evangelicalism may only be defined by appeal to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, which I understand, as an evangelical, to be God’s inerrant-in-what-it-claims-to-be-true word. There is not the smallest detail of Scripture that can be denied by an evangelical as true or authoritative, whilst continuing to claim to be evangelical.

Creeds such as the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostle’s creed, definitions such as the Chalcedonian definition, and Confessions such as Westminster, Heidelberg, the 39 Articles or the UCCF DB are useful summaries of key doctrines, but they are neither inerrant nor exhaustive. They are a useful and necessary abstractions of biblical (and therefore evangelical) truth.

Pentecostalism is not evangelical because it appeals implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) to experience as holding a higher authority than Scripture. Insofar as it does not do this, it is evangelical rather than Pentecostal.

In addition, pentecostalism as represented by Hillsong is not evangelical because it obfuscates and marginalizes the evangelical understanding of the cross, and because it raises regarding God’s action in the world and the life of the believer that are not supported by Scripture.

*************

I suppose I could go back through what was just written and liberally lace it with a few 'I thinks' and “I supposes' and 'IMHOs'. I’m not doing that because as my English teacher in high school used to say, “when you’re explaining what you think, don’t write ‘I think’. We will read it and assume that you think it, or if you don’t think it that you wouldn’t have written it.”

If you ask why a definition of evangelicalism ought to exclude Pentecostalism as represented by Hillsong (PARBH), the answer I give is that PARBH misrepresents the message of the Bible in key areas, as explained above.

Anticipating the question of who gets to decide what an 'evangelical' interpretation of Scripture is: I would answer, God and God alone. This is a circular argument, but not viciously so.

None of this excludes the possibility that Pentecostals and evangelicals will hold many beliefs in common; just as 100 years ago the early evangelicals and liberals held many beliefs in common.

I would also say that while my view is quite likely a minority view, it is not one peculiar to me and would be shared by a number of members of UK reform, Oak Hill, Moore College, and Sydney Anglicans, and quite likely others. I don’t list them because, at one level, the question of labelling doesn’t seem to me to matter a great deal. If my appropriation of the name ‘evangelical’ causes problems in the way of seeming arrogant or multiplying confusion, I’m just as happy to drop it and be called ‘Nigel’
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Double post to add: I meant to say, "early evangelicals and liberals at Cambridge University"
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I'm sorry, I swear I used prevwie spot on the last two posts. This paragraph should have had the word in bold included:

In addition, pentecostalism as represented by Hillsong is not evangelical because it obfuscates and marginalizes the evangelical understanding of the cross, and because it raises expectations regarding God’s action in the world and the life of the believer that are not supported by Scripture.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks Gordon

A few, hopefully gently expressed, observations on what you have produced. Your definition of an evangelical, as it stands, seems to me to be a definition of where the definition may be, without error, found. Look for it here (in inerrant scripture), not necessarily in Creeds or Councils. And definitely don't look for it anyway where experience is given a higher authority than scripture. And particularly where they don't (or don't appear to) emphasise the Cross. I know lots of people who would read what you've said and say "yes".

My own perspective is that your definition is closer to a description of the ultimate foundation of the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists. By definition, that probably excludes folks like Alan Cresswell and myself, who classify ourselves as evangelicals (I do and I'm pretty sure Alan does), who have a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture but are not fundamentalists. That's OK by the way. Its only a definition and I'm quite happy to call you "Nigel". (Why "Nigel"??)

Without wishing to offer any other definition, I have always believed that our distinctiveness as evangelicals comes from the original Greek for gospel or good news. "Euangelion". We are, or I thought we were, essentially, "proclaimers of the good news of Jesus Christ" - something we believe deeply should be preached, shared and shown as our proclamation. The move towards inerrancy developed defensively when some of our evangelical forebears saw the gospel being bent out of (what they saw as) its traditional scriptural shape by both Traditionalists and Modernists. I worry sometimes that fundamentalism has become the "tail that wags the evangelical dog".

In a sense, that is the only thing that bothers me about your definition. The real danger of fundamentalism is that it replaces an "infallible" pope or an "infallible" Tradition with an "infallible" Book. And thereby repeats what I see as the error on the other side of the argument. Even if the Book were to be infallible (and there is substantial evidence that it is not), written words are only the nexus, the channel of communication. For them to be useful as an infallible source, they needs to be infallibly interpreted.

And there's the rub. On whose authority? Who are you going to trust? Putting too much weight on words as an objective source of truth can very easily lead to an idolising of objectivity and a resurgence of Pharisaism. It doesn't necessarily happen to fundamentalists (some of my best friends are .....) but human popes and paper popes can actually take our eyes of Jesus if we aren't careful. He is the living Word - the Word made flesh. Says so in John. And other places. And, as Jeremiah foretold, "its written on my heart". There it is. I know in my "knower". The rest is worship and journey.

I remember that we share this in common and close with it.

"For what we preach is not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord with ourselves as your servants. For it is the God who said 'Let light shine out of darkness' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ".

God bless
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
GC, many thanks for finally getting back to us. I'm not around much at present as I have just moved house - there are boxes in every room and I haven't even found my pc yet, let alone got it connected. Your explanation of what a GCE is sounds pretty mainstream to me; I'd be interested to know if any of the other evangelicals on the Ship find it marginal. We differ as to where we would place Pentecostals because we have different understandings of that group; I see Pentecostalism as being Scripture-led, and you don't.

However, I would like your thoughts on some of the issues that have come up as this thread has developed. Taking your:

quote:

---

Definition: Ultimately evangelicalism may only be defined by appeal to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, which I understand, as an evangelical, to be God’s inerrant-in-what-it-claims-to-be-true word. There is not the smallest detail of Scripture that can be denied by an evangelical as true or authoritative, whilst continuing to claim to be evangelical.

---

quote:

---

If someone prayerfully, honestly and intelligently studies the Bible can they arrive at a position which is not evangelical? Or, to put it another way, are all evangelicals led by the Bible? Or do some lead the Bible to the "right" conclusion, and who then has determined what is "right"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If someone prayerfully, honestly and intelligently studies the Bible can they arrive at a position which is not evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Or, to put it another way, are all evangelicals led by the Bible?

---

quote:

---

Or do some lead the Bible to the "right" conclusion, and who then has determined what is "right"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

My own perspective is that your definition is closer to a description of the ultimate foundation of the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists. By definition, that probably excludes folks like Alan Cresswell and myself, who classify ourselves as evangelicals (I do and I'm pretty sure Alan does), who have a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture but are not fundamentalists. That's OK by the way. Its only a definition and I'm quite happy to call you "Nigel". (Why "Nigel"??)

---

quote:

---

originally posted by someone or other:
Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian Fundamentalism, in the scope of this particular article, refers to the movement within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a core set of Christian beliefs: namely, the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles.

---

quote:

---

Even if the Book were to be infallible (and there is substantial evidence that it is not), written words are only the nexus, the channel of communication. For them to be useful as an infallible source, they needs to be infallibly interpreted.

And there's the rub. On whose authority? Who are you going to trust? Putting too much weight on words as an objective source of truth can very easily lead to an idolising of objectivity and a resurgence of Pharisaism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<big snip - responding to B62>
Does my previous post address this to some extent?

Cheers

Gordon

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Final try. I suppose you dont fancy regrouping around "euangelion" and proclamation as the core distinctives of evangelicals?

---

No, no, I like that very much indeed!

What is the "euangelion"?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Gordon

I thought you'd never ask! The key question of course - and definitely worth a separate thread. It might yet degrade into "inerrant versus invisible" but I thought it might be a more constructive way of looking at our "common ground".

I dont think its a Dead Horse BTW but I'll probably check with a Purgatory Host before posting. (That wont be for two or three days - my wife's parents celebrate their Diamond wedding anniversary this week so SofF takes a back seat for a while.)
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What is the "euangelion"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
… unless otherwise indicated, I’m using evangelical according to my understanding of the word —whilst acknowledging that there are other understandings of the word, and that my understanding whilst defensible, may not even be the best contemporary definition.

---

quote:

---

Definition: Ultimately evangelicalism may only be defined by appeal to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, which I understand, as an evangelical, to be God’s inerrant-in-what-it-claims-to-be-true word. There is not the smallest detail of Scripture that can be denied by an evangelical as true or authoritative, whilst continuing to claim to be evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Pentecostalism is not evangelical because it appeals implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) to experience as holding a higher authority than Scripture. Insofar as it does not do this, it is evangelical rather than Pentecostal.

---

quote:

---

In addition, pentecostalism as represented by Hillsong is not evangelical because it obfuscates and marginalizes the evangelical understanding of the cross, and because it raises regarding God’s action in the world and the life of the believer that are not supported by Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Anticipating the question of who gets to decide what an 'evangelical' interpretation of Scripture is: I would answer, God and God alone. This is a circular argument, but not viciously so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

Not to get back to some comments made by Gordon and still hoping to see The Wanderer around here again. First of all, thank you, Gordon, for giving your definition of Evangelical and even more so for this concession:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
… unless otherwise indicated, I’m using evangelical according to my understanding of the word —whilst acknowledging that there are other understandings of the word, and that my understanding whilst defensible, may not even be the best contemporary definition.

---

I personally would find a lot of what you say more palatable, if it were expressed in the form of "I don't consider them to be evangelical" rather than a flat out "They're not evangelical".

---

Hi Gracie, welcome back.

But I did make this clarification very early on in the original Hell thread, and tried to maintain it consistently throughout. Still, glad we got it sorted.

quote:

---

The thing is, most of the pentecostals I know would agree with you about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. They may even go as far as saying that it's people like you who don't lend enough authority to Scripture, because in their perception you "get rid" of some bits you don't like about spiritual gifts.

---

quote:

---

I think that The Wanderer has already made it clear that pentecostals as a whole do not appeal to experience as holding a higher authority than Scripture. Certainly the pentecostals I have met teach that experience should always be submitted to Scripture. So are you saying that they're not really pentecostal?

---

quote:

---

So, Gordon, do you think that Hillsong is a fair representative of mainstream pentecostalism?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Anticipating the question of who gets to decide what an 'evangelical' interpretation of Scripture is: I would answer, God and God alone. This is a circular argument, but not viciously so.

---

That seems a curious thing to say, after all the word Evangelical is not actually in the Bible.

---

No, but 'euangelion', from which we get our word 'evangel' and hence evangelical' is. 'Euangelion' is Greek for gospel. So to find out what an 'evangelical' is, if you're trying to define it theologically (as I am) rather than as a sociological grouping, you must fairly early on ask the question "what is the evangel". And evangelicals since Martin Luther have tagged themselves that way because they believe the answer is found in the Bible.

But words shift in their meaning, and I can see that others have started to use the word quite differently. Which, as I keep saying, is OK we just need to recognise that this is what is going on if we are to achieve clarity in discussions like this.

[Fixed hacked code]

[ 30. August 2005, 02:30: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
.. and I set up a new thread (Proclaimers of good news) in Purg especially for this. And you never came. Its languishing on p2 ...
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Oh- sorry about that B62, it must've slipped by. will check it out.

Sorry for hacked coding in previous post, hosts.
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Gracie, welcome back.

---

quote:

---

But I did make this clarification very early on in the original Hell thread, and tried to maintain it consistently throughout.

---

quote:

---

Yes, of course, but what is contested is who is actually accurate in making this claim. That's decided as we discuss particular questions such as 'gifts' or 'second blessing' or 'prosperity gospel' on a case by case basis. There's no other way to work out whether someone takes Scripture seriously than to start talking with them about it. To some extent we all get it wrong, and it's in the process of allowing ourselves to be corrected by Scripture that we find out whether we actually believe it, as opposed to just claiming to believe it.

---

quote:

---

In the case of Hillsong, I argue that they don't submit their prosperity gospel to Scripture and that their claim to find such ideas within Scripture is repugnant.

---

quote:

---

They are certainly one of the most publicized Pentecostal groups in Sydney, and Brian Houston is the current national President of the Assemblies of God in Australia. That suggests that they are representative of mainstream pentecostalism in Australia.

---

quote:

---

No, but 'euangelion', from which we get our word 'evangel' and hence evangelical' is. 'Euangelion' is Greek for gospel. So to find out what an 'evangelical' is, if you're trying to define it theologically (as I am) rather than as a sociological grouping, you must fairly early on ask the question "what is the evangel". And evangelicals since Martin Luther have tagged themselves that way because they believe the answer is found in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
So are you saying here, that people who take Scripture seriously are bound to come to the same conclusions as you?

---

quote:

---

And that people who do not take Scripture seriously will have different ideas and so are not evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Do you really think that it's impossible to take Scripture seriously and not have the same ideas as yours?

---

quote:

---

And even worse, that if we don't have the same ideas as you we are "just claiming to believe it"?

---

quote:

---

As much as I find the whole "prosperity gospel" probably as repugnant as you do, I do think that they misguidedly believe it to be there in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

They are certainly one of the most publicized Pentecostal groups in Sydney, and Brian Houston is the current national President of the Assemblies of God in Australia. That suggests that they are representative of mainstream pentecostalism in Australia.

---

So you'd be prepared to admit that they're probably not very representative of pentecostalism world-wide?

---

quote:

---

And it appears to me that so do most Pentecostals, which makes them Evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.

---

Would you like to qualify, reconsider, or withdraw that sweeping generalisation?

If not, expect to see it alongside your name in Hell soon.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
What's to qualify, Euty? Evangelicals take scripture seriously. Non-evangelicals (some of them) take scripture seriously. But there is no such thing as an evangelical who doesn't take scripture seriously.

I'm tempted to add QED but it doesn't quite fit here, as it's just a matter of (fairly basic) definition, and you seem to get annoyed if I ever put QED somewhere, so I won't
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng:
Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.

---

quote:

---

When asked by me to qualify the above:
What's to qualify, Euty?

---

quote:

---

And immediately following that:
Non-evangelicals (some of them) take scripture seriously.

---

I can't read this any other way than as an about-turn on the statement I called you on above, so I will accept it as such.

I'm just <searches for appropriate adjective> dismayed that you either can't see that, or refuse to admit it
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Let me state it like this then Euty.

All A are B.
Therefore there is no A that is not B.

However, it does not follow from the above that "no non-A is B".

This is simple logic. If you work it through devoid of any emotional connotations relating to our argument, you will see it.

If you substitute in the terms A="evangelical", B = "person who takes scripture seriously", you will also see that i haven't contradicted myself.

Come on Euty, it's Philosophy 101, think back all those years ago to the subject you must've done on basic syllogistic reasoning!

ETA: Is there a sympathetic philosopher lurking who's not caught up in this argument who can confirm the logic of the reasoning just stated, please?

[ 31. August 2005, 10:50: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Not a philosopher, but an engineering programmer trained in mathematics and physics. Will I do, Gordo?

You're saying that evangelicals are a subset of those who take scripture seriously.

I might challenge this on the basis that evangelicalism is a tradition and there's no guarantee of your assertion, and all that one could say is that the intersection of evangelicals with the set of those who take scripture seriously is highly unlikely to be empty - but it's certainly the case that Euty has misinterpreted the consequences of your statement for non-evangelicals.

Send the cheque to the usual address...
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Remembering my Anthony Flew it is a valid argument. Whether it is based on true propositions may, of course, be questioned.

[ 31. August 2005, 11:14: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I understood

quote:

---

Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Anyone who does take Scripture seriously must be evangelical.

---

It seems I did indeed misinterpret the statement, and for this I apologize. I read an implication into the original statement which isn't a logical inevitability.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Thanks Euty, and I hope I didn't offend by the way I put it, but if I did, apologies.

Thanks philosophers-in-shiply-residence, and what you say of course is true, that there's no way to work backward from the validity of the argument to test whether the underlying assumptions are true.

Speaking of Antony Flew, I imagine you lot know that he has moved away from atheism. If nothing else you've got to admire his integrity in following his conclusions through!
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
So are you saying here, that people who take Scripture seriously are bound to come to the same conclusions as you?

---

No, since taking Scripture seriously doesn't mean getting it right. You work out whether you got it right by discussion and debate.

---

quote:

---

All I said was that [Hillsong] seem to be representative of Australian Pentecostalism. On those grounds, it is likely they are representative of Pentecostals elsewhere too, but I don't know enough to make a definitive comment.

---

quote:

---

… as with anyone who claims to be 'evangelical', that claim must be tested against the actual content of Scripture. I take it you agree that prosperity gospel isn't taught in the Bible. If you and I are right about that, it follows that Pentecostals are wrong in claiming that it is, and therefore misguided in their claim to be evangelical.

---

• How do you test a claim to be evangelical against the content of Scripture when that qualifier isn't even mentioned there?
• So are you trying to say that anyone who teaches anything that isn't in the Bible isn't evangelical? Or is this just a thing with pentecostals and charismatics for you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
But getting it right definitely means agreeing with you, eh?

---

quote:

---

And in what way do you work out if you've got it right by discussion and debate?

---

quote:

---

Gracie:

quote:

---

Me: All I said was that [Hillsong] seem to be representative of Australian Pentecostalism. On those grounds, it is likely they are representative of Pentecostals elsewhere too, but I don't know enough to make a definitive comment.

---

You: Don't you think there's a difference between elsewhere and worldwide. I personally have no doubt at all that there are others like Hillsong elsewhere. That they might be typical of Pentecostals worldwide is another thing entirely. And I'm a lot more dubious about that.

---

And I don't believe I've ever made any unqualified claim in Purgatory (on this thread or elsewhere) about Pentecostalism. I am talking about Hillsong, you're the one who is trying to broaden it to a discussion of all Pentecostals, as you'll see back on page one of this thread.

I will get back to the other questions you raise, I need to organise breakfast for the family!
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Two things here:

• How do you test a claim to be evangelical against the content of Scripture when that qualifier isn't even mentioned there?
• So are you trying to say that anyone who teaches anything that isn't in the Bible isn't evangelical? Or is this just a thing with pentecostals and charismatics for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

[Getting it right] means agreeing with the teaching of Scripture. But I don't claim that I am the bible, or that I get it right in every respect. It must, however (at least from an evangelical perspective) be possible to get it right.

---

I agree that it must be possible to get it right . At least on some things.
That begs the question though on whether or not it's possible to know you've got it right, and even more so to know that you've got it right on absolutely everything.

That said, I know an alarming number of Evangelicals who think they've got it right about absolutely everything, whilst being in complete disagreement with one another on certain issues.

quote:

---

An example might be "The Bible teaches that if you're rich and famous, then you're experiencing God's blessing." "No it doesn't. Where do you get that?" "Well what about Solomon and Abraham?" "Sure, but do you think all Christians are supposed to be like them?"

---

Responding to your example is probably a tangent, but I don't think proponents of the prosperity teachings use Solomon and Abraham to argue their position. I think they get it more from a straightforward and literalistic interpretation of passages like Mark 11:24 : "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

quote:

---

etc. I'm sure you knew that, though, so I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your question.

---

I'm just wondering concretely in your particular brand of evangelicalism, what space there is for you to work out that you've got something wrong by engaging in discussion and debate. Has that ever happened to you?

quote:

---

And I don't believe I've ever made any unqualified claim in Purgatory (on this thread or elsewhere) about Pentecostalism. I am talking about Hillsong, you're the one who is trying to broaden it to a discussion of all Pentecostals, as you'll see back on page one of this thread.

---

Yes, your original claim, to which I reacted by starting this thread, that pentecostals are not evangelical was in Hell and not in Purgatory. I wanted a "purgatorial" debate on this, rather than a hellish one, so I started the discussion here. If you'd wanted a more restricted discussion on Hillsong, you could have always started a thread yourself. Right from the start I was more interested in discussing the more general question.

While it is true that you haven't made any unqualified claim in Purgatory about Pentecostalism, you haven't retracted your original statement either. You haven't even said, that there might be some evangelical pentecostals somewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Two things here:

• How do you test a claim to be evangelical against the content of Scripture when that qualifier isn't even mentioned there?
• So are you trying to say that anyone who teaches anything that isn't in the Bible isn't evangelical? Or is this just a thing with pentecostals and charismatics for you?

---

Gordon:
Don't quite understand the first question, would you mind having another go? Thanks.

On the second question, yes, insofar as you teach stuff that isn't in the Bible, you're not being evangelical. So if the Bible teaches that black is black and white is white, and you come along and say that "I'm an evangelical, except that I believe that black is white", then the fitting response would be "You're an evangelical, except for your belief that black is white." So no, it's not just Pentecostals, it's anyone who gets it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

That begs the question though on whether or not it's possible to know you've got it right, and even more so to know that you've got it right on absolutely everything.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:That said, I know an alarming number of Evangelicals who think they've got it right about absolutely everything, whilst being in complete disagreement with one another on certain issues.

---

quote:

---

what space there is for you to work out that you've got something wrong by engaging in discussion and debate. Has that ever happened to you?

---

quote:

---

Yes, your original claim, to which I reacted by starting this thread, that pentecostals are not evangelical was in Hell and not in Purgatory. I wanted a "purgatorial" debate on this, rather than a hellish one, so I started the discussion here. If you'd wanted a more restricted discussion on Hillsong, you could have always started a thread yourself. Right from the start I was more interested in discussing the more general question.

---

quote:

---

You haven't even said, that there might be some evangelical pentecostals somewhere.

---

quote:

---

OK, I think I'm gradually understanding a little better where you're coming from. For you "evangelical" would be a synonym for "biblical"? Would that be right?

---

quote:

---

I have understood from what you've written here and elsewhere on the ship, that you're an Anglican. From my own understanding of the Bible and evangelical upbringing, there are lots of things taught and done by Anglicans which don't have the support of Scripture.

Don't you find it at all disturbing to say that others aren't evangelical because they have some teaching which in your opinion doesn't square up with Scripture, whilst accepting other things in your own church's practice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Not to mention that if we just went on statements of belief, the Anglican church is thoroughly evangelical (witness the 39 Articles). If only it were so!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
Gordon,

<snip>
Incidentally, I went to Abundant Life, Bradford, which has some relations with Hillsongs. I would say that the messages being given off from there were certainly not evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If only it were so that you would include in statements like this phrases such as "I believe that the Anglican church...", or "evangelical by my definition", or some such, trying to engage in debate with you would be much less jarring.

---

quote:

---

Euty: For starters, I would like you to explain to anabaptists (most if not all of whom would describe themselves as evangelicals and who, historically, suffered no small persecution at the hands of Anglicans and others on this score - and as far as I know all Pentecostals would be basically anabaptist) how article XXVII is "evangelical" ie self-apparent from the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Euty: Then we can move on to Articles XXI and XXXVI through XXXIX. I look forward to learning how these are "throroughly evangelical", too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
Hi Barnabas,

If you followed the original discussion on Hillsongs then it was pretty much the same issues. If you want a fuller answer I'll try later (busy right now!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Many pentecostalist/charismatic preachers I have heard would claim that they are taking the Bible seriously, in a way that "traditional" evangelicals do not. The basis of this claim would be their expectation that the whole range of spiritual gifts (including tongues, miracles and prophecy) should be found in the church today, and that when the gospel is preached there should be "signs following".

This seems a reasonable and logical claim to me. What objection would a non-pentecostal evangelical have to it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
After weeks of computer problems I think/hope I am now back on board again. I would like to pick up on a point that Gracie made earlier, if I may. Many pentecostalist/charismatic preachers I have heard would claim that they are taking the Bible seriously, in a way that "traditional" evangelicals do not. The basis of this claim would be their expectation that the whole range of spiritual gifts (including tongues, miracles and prophecy) should be found in the church today, and that when the gospel is preached there should be "signs following".

This seems a reasonable and logical claim to me. What objection would a non-pentecostal evangelical have to it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

If you think it's right you act on it. If you doubt it's right you don't. You can't both trust your weight to the chair and not trust your weight to the chair at one and the same time, now can you?

---

quote:

---

…the most significant issues on which I've changed my mind in the last twenty years would include […] I am currently confused about Intelligent Design and hoping to get some help on the question.

---

quote:

---

Gordon:
Give me an example, then.
Quantpole:
Here's an example

---

quote:

---

"We believe in the inspiration and the sole authority of the Bible"

---

quote:

---

I have no doubt there are pentecostal churches that are evangelical, really.

---

quote:

---

Traditionally, however, Anglicanism is evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

So concretely, when you feel you need some "help" on a question, how do you proceed?

---

quote:

---

Gracie:
and rather than taking that at face value, you are still trying to suggest that they are not evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:
I do thank you however that you finally manage to admit for the first time since the beginning of these discussions:

quote:

---

I have no doubt there are pentecostal churches that are evangelical, really.

---

And congratulations to Quantpole for getting you to admit it.

---

quote:

---

Gracie: So in your eyes, non-anglican churches must get all their teaching and practices from the Bible in order to qualify to be evangelical… whereas Anglicanism is evangelical, in spite of all the stuff in the 39 articles about the consecration of bishops and ordering of priests etc?

Don't you think there are double standards here somewhere?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I read the Bible, I pray, I check commentaries and other books, I ask friends. If I'm feeling particularly feisty I log on to Ship of Fools to talk about it, if I want a more in-depth online discussion (as opposed to a combative one) I go to Sydney Anglicans. Somewhere along the way I come to a provisional conclusion. ?

---

quote:

---

I didn't suggest that at all. I just said there's not enough information in that one web-page for me to know.

---

quote:

---

It's not an "admission". I've said consistently on this thread that I'm really talking about Hillsong. If you want me to talk about other parts of Pentecostalism, I'll happily admit ignorance, and have done all along.

---

quote:

---

The 39 Articles of Religion, however, are a very good evangelical statement of faith, but like all stuff that is not divinely inspired, liable to contain some error…

Thankfully, the 39 articles gets it right in all the key areas (IMHO-that's for you, Euty) like authority of Scripture, universal sinfulness of mankind, justification by faith alone, the divinity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, salvation by God's grace without any contribution from our works, the certainty of coming judgement by the Lord Jesus…

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I read the Bible, I pray, I check commentaries and other books, I ask friends. If I'm feeling particularly feisty I log on to Ship of Fools to talk about it, if I want a more in-depth online discussion (as opposed to a combative one) I go to Sydney Anglicans. Somewhere along the way I come to a provisional conclusion. ?

---

My question is how do you come to a conclusion (provisional or otherwise)?

---

quote:

---

Gracie:

quote:

---

me:
I didn't suggest that at all. I just said there's not enough information in that one web-page for me to know.

---

Gracie: But your interim conclusion is that they aren't and it's not clear what it would take for you to entertain the idea that they might be, in spite of the fact that they say quite clearly that they believe in the sole authority of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Theologically speaking, I take it that God answers my prayer for enlightenment by giving me a brain, discussion partners, commentaries, and online forums to assist in understanding his Word, the Bible. If I turn out to have made a mistake and become aware of it, I change my mind, apologise as necessary and move on.

Ultimately though, understanding God is a work of his Holy Spirit. It can't be otherwise.
.

---

quote:

---

Why ask me to comment on something I've told you I don't know about?

---

• Pentecostals (or more specifically Australian AOG pentecostals) are "not even close" to being Evangelical
• You have no idea
• You have no doubt that there are some evangelical pentecostals

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
And so it appears all the more curious to me, that you can maintain that you've got it right and are evangelical, whilst others who also subscribe to the sole authority of Scripture have got it wrong and are not evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:
I believe it was you, (when I remarked that you hadn't even said that there just might be some evangelical pentecostals somewhere) that asked for an example. When an example was given, rather than accept the statement of faith at face value, it was you that hedged the issue claiming that their statement of faith wasn't clear enough.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:

You seem to have three conflicting positions on this:

• Pentecostals (or more specifically Australian AOG pentecostals) are "not even close" to being Evangelical
• You have no idea
• You have no doubt that there are some evangelical pentecostals

Which should I believe to be true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I don't claim to have all things right, but I do make stronger claims with regard to certain issues. Thus I believe it is impossible to be evangelical and not teach "justification by faith alone", or to be evangelical and teach prosperity gospel.

---

quote:

---

* Emphasis on the Cross, often (but not exclusively) taking a Penal Substititionary Atonement model.
* Centrality of Scripture, it's "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct" (could be inerrancy or infallibility)
* Importance of conversion, evangelicals believe in a need to make a personal decision to follow Christ.
* Activism, the Christian faith is something that results in action - primarily evangelism, though also social action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon

I don't claim to have all things right, but I do make stronger claims with regard to certain issues. Thus I believe it is impossible to be evangelical and not teach "justification by faith alone", or to be evangelical and teach prosperity gospel. I believe it is possible to be evangelical and differ on questions such as paedobaptism (that would be Article XXVII in the Anglican 39 Articles), or the meaning of Revelation 20:1-3 as applied to world history.

---

quote:

---

Well, as long as you allow that the three positions are not logically inconsistent, you can believe all, two, one or none (your choice).

---

quote:

---

So if you seriously want me to comment on whether or not Pentecostals are evangelical (and yes, you're quite right if you notice that I haven't made such a comment anywhere on this thread), then I am going to ask you how it is that you are defining 'Pentecostal'. Once you do that, I can give you an answer in line with your definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas


I understand the claim about "justification by faith alone," but the claim about teaching the prosperity gospel perplexes me. Please don't get me wrong. I find prosperity teaching repugnant and--to speak as I once would have with no self-consciousness--"unbiblical." But holding a position someone believes to be unbiblical certainly doesn't make someone not an evangelical. If it did, no one would be an evangelical!

So, it must have something to do with violating a supposed identity marker of evangelicalism. Perhaps I missed your previous explanation on this. If so, I'd appreciate being referred to it. Otherwise, further clarification would be helpful. How is teaching prosperity specifically non-evangelical?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb



The evangelical approach is the back-to-the-Bible approach. In particular, characterised by a belief in "The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture, as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct" or equivalent. That, to my mind, is the defining characteristic of an evangelical….

However, it is possible to agree with those beliefs without having reached them by an evangelical methodology, or perhaps to use an evangelical methodology come to different conclusions on what scripture teaches….

I think this is pretty much the same kind of thing that Gordon has been arguing, so sorry for the repetition! It's helped me think things through, even if I don't have anything massively original to contribute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Personally I believe it is not possible to be evangelical and believe in baptismal regeneration. Article 26 seems to be unclear on this issue.

---

This is the funny thing about the criteria used to define evangelicalism and to decide who is "in" and who is "out". While I think many (most?) evangelicals would agree with you, the problem is that a good case can be made that baptismal regeneration is taught in Scripture. So, if most evangelicals reject what the Bible says about baptism,* are they evangelicals, if evangelicalism is defined by fidelity to Scripture?

[*It is the means by which we arrive at forgiveness of sins (Acts 3:38); it is the means by which we wash away sins (Acts 22:16); it saves (1 Peter 3:21).]

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
How is teaching prosperity specifically non-evangelical?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by God:
Acts 14:21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had kmade many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,
Acts 14:22 lstrengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them mto continue in nthe faith, and saying that othrough many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now I’m going to assume that neither you nor anyone on these boards thinks that prosperity gospel is biblical, but if someone wants to have a go at arguing that it is, let’s have that discussion too.

---

quote:

---

Given that it’s not biblical, the question then arises as to whether or not it is important enough to cause a fuss over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

So far, I simply have not seen an argument from you that demonstrates specifically why holding to prosperity teaching is un-evangelical. Being unbiblical is simply not the same thing as being un-evangelical. If the two were the same ....

.... then Baptists could declare that all paedobaptists are not evangelicals
....Mennonites could declare that anyone who believes in "just war" is not evangelical
.... Calvinists could declare that all Arminians are not evangelicals
.... members of the Campbellite Churches of Christ could declare that anyone who rejects their views on adult baptismal regeneration are not evangelicals
.... and Pentecostals could declare that anyone who rejects the gifts of the Spirit described in Scripture is not an evangelical!

You have been arguing on the basis of an assumption that committment to biblical authority is constitutive of evangelical identity; that is, you're not an evangelical if you explicitly reject something in the Bible. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that claim. It does fairly represent the views of most evangelicals, I think (and, for the record, is why I am not myself an evangelical).

Do prosperity teachers explicitly reject biblical teaching? I am not asking if you think they reject biblical teaching. I'm asking if they articulate this position themselves. Do they say something to the effect that they know their teaching is contradicted by the Bible, but they prefer it to the Bible? I very much doubt this. All of their rhetoric is centered on claiming that what they teach is entirely biblical. They talk like evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
The assumption seems to be that Evangelicals can't be in error. Which is in my book surely an error.

---

quote:

---

You're right, it is an error. Evangelicalism, however, is theologically defined by the content of Scripture, so it is impossible for it to be in error. Evangelicals, by contrast, may well fail to get it right, at which point they are not living up to the content of evangelical belief (which is Scripture).

Pentecostalism as manifested by Hillsong (DT, I posted a link to the Oz site earlier in the thread, on page 1, so you can get a pretty good feel for it.), however, is in error on the question of prosperity doctrine. Therefore it is not evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Quite apart from the staggering lack of intellectual humility in this position, it raises the interesting question of those areas where Evangelicals disagree. Gordon's exist clause is, presumably, that either those who do not agree with him (I nearly capitalised the pronoun there, which is worrying) are not evangelicals or that such disagreements are not of the nature of circumcision, Nicene orthodoxy and prosperity teaching and therefore not sufficient to debar one from the ranks of the True Evangelicals™.

Personally, if I were an evangelical I might find this model a little disturbing. One the one hand it offers the conviction that my views are error free. On the other hand, I could find myself unchurched for espousing an interpretation of the Bible that was a) deemed to be in error and b) deemed to be sufficiently serious to cast me out into uttermost darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. As the diagnosis of serious error appears to be left to prominent evangelical divines who are, according to evangelical theology, not given any special charism in interpreting the Bible this model appears to have all the difficulties of Papal Infallibility and none of the benefits.

---

Blimey, I was right.

Gordon, I'm trying hard to get my head around this, but you are in fact saying that "evangelical" is cognate with "correct".

If, when you get to heaven, you're placed in an area with very high walls and loud music playing, don't be surprised.

Seriously, though: how can you possibly justify that position? I mean, in the real world, now, obviously.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
In the real world? Oh well, I just do my best and trust God that it'll all come out in the wash. Like a lot of people, I guess.

(For some reason I have this song going through my mind. I identify with this dude)
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Sorry, or try this.

ah'm just doin' the best ah can...

[replaced long URL with tinyurl]

[ 09. September 2005, 12:51: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Hoping it all comes out in the wash is nice and everything, but... well, it's a fudge, innit?

And actually, that's not a justification. That's a strategy for getting by with it. So how do you justify it?

[ 09. September 2005, 12:36: Message edited by: Wood ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Sorry about scroll lock, hosts.

(Posting in haste, doin' the best ah can).

What's to justify? That there is a right position doesn't mean I hold it in all respects.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sorry about scroll lock, hosts.

(Posting in haste, doin' the best ah can).

What's to justify? That there is a right position doesn't mean I hold it in all respects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
cobber.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, here at the Philosophy department of the University of Woolloomooloo, we like to think we have a bit more epistemological humility than that.

So if you really disagree with me about prosperity doctrine, and you think those of us with the most faith oughtta be rolling in cash, you just go ahead and say so with reasons, sport, and the faculty here will consider your submission.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Actually, I think that prosperity doctrine is a boil on Christendom's backside (and I'd be suprised if there were all that many here on this board who disagreed with me).

---

quote:

---

No, what you're wrong with is the assumption that you have to be completely right to be evangelical, and that "evangelical" is cognate with "100% doctrinally pure"

---

quote:

---

Evangelicalism, however, is theologically defined by the content of Scripture, so it is impossible for it to be in error.

---

?

Given my experience of evangelicalism, there's a lot of mutually exclusive beliefs which fall under the old Evangel/Metaphor/ical Umbrella - eg. Welsh non-conformism vs. Axis of Jensen Anglicanism vs. HTB evangelicalism vs. evangelical Methodism vs. evangelical English Baptist practice... I could go on.

Given what I know about these people, they differ on a lot of points. They can't all be right. Some of them are, objectively, factually, very wrong, in fact (I find the EMW's practices bordering on cultish at times, for example, and as for the bloke who runs Spurgeon's Tabernacle... well) - but hang on. That means they can't be evangelicals.

There are many on this board (or there were before I took my break) who will tell you that they know that Lay Presidency is one hundred and eighty degrees from correct. Does that mean that the evangelicals in the Axis of Jensen aren't followers of evangelicalism?

I hardly think so.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
maybe i *know* not ordaining women vicars is 180% from truth.

if evangelical = truth then we can knock Gorden Cheng out
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
maybe i *know* not ordaining women vicars is 180% from truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon

Gracie Your definition of Pentecostalism is sufficiently vague that it might be OK to believe it and still call yourself evangelical. When you look at a fuzzy thing from a long way away and squint, it appears to be indistinguishable from another fuzzy thing that you can see out of the corner of your eye. So it is with the definition you have given. But the more you insist on the distinctives you've mentioned, the less evangelical that definition looks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon

DT, I'm fairly sure I've answered some of the stuff you've raised somewhere back on this thread, although I can't really remember as it seems to have been going on now for longer than the bubonic plague. I may dredge through at some point and link it, if I can manage without sending myself sleepy-byes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood


Am I right in thinking that the reasoning is going like this?

1. Pentecostals believe in Prosperity teaching.
2. Prosperity teaching is wrong and unBiblical (as any fule kno).
3. Ergo, Pentecostals can't be Evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Anybody spot the leap between point 2 and point 3?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan

If I read you aright:

1/ Scripture is inerrant
2/ Evangelicalism is the correct interpretation of scripture and is, therefore, also inerrant.
3/ Hillsongs et. al. hold to the prosperity Gospel which is an error.
4/ Error is incompatible with Evangelicalism.
5/ Therefore Hillsongs et. al. do not teach Evangelicalism.
6/ Therefore Hillsongs et. al. are not Evangelicals.

Quite apart from the staggering lack of intellectual humility in this position, it raises the interesting question of those areas where Evangelicals disagree…

Personally, if I were an evangelical I might find this model a little disturbing… As the diagnosis of serious error appears to be left to prominent evangelical divines who are, according to evangelical theology, not given any special charism in interpreting the Bible this model appears to have all the difficulties of Papal Infallibility and none of the benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood

Gordon, I'm trying hard to get my head around this, but you are in fact saying that "evangelical" is cognate with "correct".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma
maybe i *know* not ordaining women vicars is 180% from truth.

---

Hi Emma <big wave>
Thank you for joining The One True Thread
In fact, I think you'll find that ordaining anyone, male or female is 180% from the truth, but there you go, more grist to my mill.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Gracie, I wouldn't worry about it. I haven't had the heart to get involved in this thread again, because GC argued himself into a corner pages ago but hasn't had the gumption to admit it. Now, as well as claiming the Bible and the cross as the exclusive preserve of GCEs, he tells us that only GCEs are correct. I'm afraid it seems to me that there is a breathtaking arrogance about all of this - but it takes a while to spot it because he does have very nice manners. (In much the same way as Stalin was fond of cats.)
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Now, as well as claiming the Bible and the cross as the exclusive preserve of GCEs, he tells us that only GCEs are correct.

---

So many questions, so little time... at least some of you lot are asleep now. The benefits of being Antipodean, or should that be Podean?

Anyway, TW, what you've said here is just silly. I'm sure I've said that people other than evangelicals take the Bible and the cross seriously, preserve schmeserve.

And as for only people who agree with me being correct, a page or so back I gave about 10 examples of things I changed my mind over in the last 20 years, while still claiming to be evangelical. So according to you, which version of me was I claiming to be correct? And am I correct now? If so, when I change my mind again, will I (on your view) be consigning myself to outer darkness? This is a worrying development. I better go right now and write down as much of what I believe as I can remember, so I can go back and use it as a reference point

A lot of youse seem to be het up by the extraordinary fact that evangelicals disagree among each other, and some of you have mentioned the lack of a papal style magisterium to sort it all out. Naturally I'm really pleased that you've pointed the fact of disagreement among evangelicals out, as without your help I would never have become aware of it!

The answer to all your questions about this is that we just need to take a Midol (whatever that is—we don't have them in Oz so someone will have to PM one to me), a deep breath and just relax about some of these details. Perfect doctrinal clarity won't get you into heaven—I know because SoFists keep reminding me. Then we can talk about whether they matter or not.

On this thread, the only issue I've identified with respect to Pentecostalism (as manifested by Hillsong) is prosperity gospel. Prosperity gospel is a lot of tosh, it is unbibliical (thank God that some of you have acknowledged that) and as it is quite important, it is also (and in consequence of all these reasons) unevangelical. I believe prosperity gospel is unliberal, unRoman Catholic, and unFreggers-style-orthodox as well, but not being an expert on any of those other theological positions, youse can all tell me if I'm right or not.

(Wood: kangaroo-botherer what aminals do they have in Wales, then, or have you bothered them all to extinction? Actually I seem to remember a few sheep on that OICCU houseparty I attended there, and I'm not talking about the students!)
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:


Hi Emma <big wave>
Thank you for joining The One True Thread
In fact, I think you'll find that ordaining anyone, male or female is 180% from the truth, but there you go, more grist to my mill.

---

hehe - ive even managed to convince a few ministers of that in my time

AS for ordaining anyone -heck i believe that, whats got into me?!?!?! Im being anglicanised by the ship and now by church...

heeeeeeeeeeelllllllllpppppppppppppppppp
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Woodie: Am I right in thinking that the reasoning is going like this?

1. Pentecostals believe in Prosperity teaching.
2. Prosperity teaching is wrong and unBiblical (as any fule kno).
3. Ergo, Pentecostals can't be Evangelicals.

---

Gracie: That certainly sums up Gordon's reasoning as I'm understanding it.

quote:

---

Woodie: Anybody spot the leap between point 2 and point 3?

---

Gracie: And that's the problem with what he's saying that I've been trying to point out for some time now. I must admit I have been sorely tempted to bang my head against a brick wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Gordon can you please tell me in what way my definition of Pentecostalism is fuzzy and vague? It seems pretty precise to me, and no pentecostals have got in touch with me to tell me I'm wrong or being fuzzy about what they believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
You wish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
What has become clear is that you are only a true evangelical if your study of the Bible has led you to the same conclusions as GC. .....(etc., etc., etc)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However, the claim that "evangelical" is interchangeable with "biblical" is drawing me back into this thread against my better judgement (DNFtT). My experience was that I left evangelicalism because I found that liberal scholarship took the text more seriously. There is a tendency in some evangelical scholarship to try to make the entire Bible say the same thing at all times, without contradiction. This can lead to serious distortions of some parts of Scripture, in the cause of over all simplicity.

Or take the issue of authorship. There is strong internal evidence to suggest that the book of Daniel was not written during the Babylonian captivity, and that Paul did not write the Epistles to Timothy. Yet most evangelical commentaries I have read have not addressed this textual evidence seriously. Instead the line is: "These must have an early date because I have already decided that that is the only correct conclusion." It seems to me that the basic presuppotions of many evangelicals lead them to do violence to the Scripture they claim to uphold.

(ETA: This is purely my own perception, and in no way contradicts the very high opinion I hold of many evangelicals.)

---

Wanderer.
Well put! Your critique of typical evangelical approaches to the Bible is not "purely [your] own perception". I share it, and I am sure you speak for many other ex-evangelicals.

My own experience as a "liberal" biblical scholar fits very well with what you say here. In my experience, it is often (though, not always, certainly) the case that my "evangelical" students have the greatest trouble actually engaging with the Bible and talking about what it actually says, as opposed to what they think it ought to say. I once lost my temper with a class in which several students constantly looked to the notes in their NIV Study Bible for answers to whatever exegetical question I was asking. I'm sure it went right over their heads when I observed that, "The Reformation was a waste of time if you're simply going to make the NIV Study Bible your Magisterium!"

Thomas
[Who much prefers the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd edition, as a Magisterium! ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas

My own experience as a "liberal" biblical scholar fits very well with what you say here. In my experience, it is often (though, not always, certainly) the case that my "evangelical" students have the greatest trouble actually engaging with the Bible and talking about what it actually says, as opposed to what they think it ought to say. I once lost my temper with a class in which several students constantly looked to the notes in their NIV Study Bible for answers to whatever exegetical question I was asking. I'm sure it went right over their heads when I observed that, "The Reformation was a waste of time if you're simply going to make the NIV Study Bible your Magisterium!"

Thomas
[Who much prefers the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd edition, as a Magisterium! ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes. Although I use the categories of "liberal" and "evangelical" myself as a useful shorthand, they create some fairly substantial tension for liberal evangelicals like me!

---

You'll see that I tend to put "scare quotes" around terms like "liberal", as I can't think of them as anything more than "shorthand", as you suggest. At best, they mark a very big, general category. At worst, they tend to function as very tiny pigeon holes into which people are either forced or try to force themselves, sometimes losing limbs in the process!

I recognize--and value--the existence of "liberal evangelicals". Of course, as you doubtless know, there are "evangelicals" who would declare such a category an oxymoron. Our own Gordon, I suspect, would be one such evangelical.

In my misspent youth I tried to define myself and operate as a "liberal evangelical". However, I experienced too much tension living such an existence, both from external critics and my own "inner fundamentalist." I respect anyone who can keep it going. I found I had to "go the whole way" (Gal 5:12 NIV ), first abandoning Christianity altogether, but then returning as a non-evangelical, "liberal catholic" (to use a designation I've picked up from folks in the C of E).

On the possible thread, "Are evangelicals good biblical scholars?" ... I must agree with Wanderer that such a discussion would likely generate more heat than light. I'm already struggling a bit with both wanting to post to discussions here and recognizing that my very busy schedule limits the time I could legitimately give to it. So, I think I'd better beg off. Maybe sometime in the future!

Thomas
 

---

Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:

However, the claim that "evangelical" is interchangeable with "biblical" is drawing me back into this thread against my better judgement (DNFtT). My experience was that I left evangelicalism because I found that liberal scholarship took the text more seriously. There is a tendency in some evangelical scholarship to try to make the entire Bible say the same thing at all times, without contradiction.

Or take the issue of authorship. There is strong internal evidence to suggest that the book of Daniel was not written during the Babylonian captivity, and that Paul did not write the Epistles to Timothy. Yet most evangelical commentaries I have read have not addressed this textual evidence seriously. Instead the line is: "These must have an early date because I have already decided that that is the only correct conclusion." It seems to me that the basic presuppotions of many evangelicals lead them to do violence to the Scripture they claim to uphold.

---

Plenty of evangelicals are open to debate. If we are secure in our belief about scriptural inerrancy, there is nothing to fear from honest investigation. However part of the problem is that many liberal scholars do not come without bias themsleves. For example, many who question the dating of part of Daniel have already decided that an earlier date cannot be correct because to be open to that possibility would also require them to accept the possibility of prophecy as a genuine godly gift.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
There are liberal scholars with bias of course; we all have our own particular set of baggage that affects how we look at things. However (in the case of dating Daniel) I am not personally aware of a Bible scholar of any persuasion who is signed up to a position that requires them to rule out the possibility of prophecy. On the other hand I do know plenty of evangelicals whose views on inspiration means they are committed to an early date for Daniel no matter what the internal evidence might be.

[ 10. September 2005, 20:19: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I like the way this thread is developing!

DT I completely agree with your observation about the NIV study Bible. Those evangelicals who use it in the way you describe have, IMHO, appointed a paper pope. Which is of course unevangelical, or as The Wanderer might insist, not GCE

As for early dating of Daniel or pseudepigraphal authorship of the pastorals, we need more than sweeping assertions; probably separate threads in Kerygmania on all of them if we really wanted to do it justice. During my time at theological college we certainly didn't shy away from asking such questions and interacting with liberal contribution to the debate; I would expect no less from evangelicalism at a scholarly level. One of our essay topics in OT was on the dating of Daniel; we were given the topic, a bibliography, and no guidance whatsoever as to the "right" answer.

The pseudepigraphal question is one that is paid attention to by most of the evangelical commentaries I tend to read (and of course the non-evangelical ones), and not just on the Pastoral epistles. If the question is not addressed at a scholarly level, there is a problem. But given that evangelicals put great store on divine inspiration, there is a prima facie case that the claim for a letter to be written by a certain person, claimed within the text of the letter, should be given a great deal lof weight.

Although I remember a fellow student at Moore College saying "When pseudo-Paul wrote this, she was only joking." It was a minority opinion.
 

---

Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But given that evangelicals put great store on divine inspiration, there is a prima facie case that the claim for a letter to be written by a certain person, claimed within the text of the letter, should be given a great deal lof weight.

---

quote:

---

2Th. 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

2Th. 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I like the way this thread is developing!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Plenty of evangelicals are open to debate. If we are secure in our belief about scriptural inerrancy, there is nothing to fear from honest investigation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I like the way this thread is developing!

---

Gordon, I'd like to remind you that this thread was started in response to an offer by you in Hell (on the now defunct "Hillsong's Bobby" thread) to deal with the subject of the OP in Purg if someone started a thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The answer to the specific OP question, as defined by Gracie, is (from my point of view) "maybe". Others may disagree, as is their right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Fluffy po-mo librul!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I've asserted certain things about Hillsong and invited those who would like to defend prosperity gospel as biblical (and therefore evangelical) to do so. The answer to the specific OP question, as defined by Gracie, is (from my point of view) "maybe". Others may disagree, as is their right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Fluffy po-mo librul!

---

Ah, but I am the one true fluffy po-mo librul.

Although, how would you be defining "librul"?

---

quote:

---

We must always bear in mind that there is a distinction between the Word of God and our interpretation of it. While God's Word stands for all time, we dare not say the same about our understanding of it! Every time we read the Bible, we are exposing our belief system to the plumb line of truth. We dare not treat it as a source of quotes to reinforce our personal prejudices. We must open up even our most passionately held conviction to the instruction of Scripture.

---

Depending on what he means, I agree. Of course, if he's attacking something I hold dear, I might complain

I see from other parts of the website that there is an emphasis on tongues speaking, visions and prophecy. Certainly I have no difficulty at all with the idea of tongues speaking or prophecy occurring today; I'm no cessationist. Perhaps I'd have some questions about whether such phenomena are seen within New Frontiers as necessary to individual Christian maturity, or if not necessary, whether they are important, or complementary, or useful, or optional (or some combination of these); and, taking a step back, what is meant by "tongues" and "prophecy" and "baptism in the Spirit" anyway. I couldn't see an obvious answer on the site, but will keep looking, or perhaps TUC might like to comment.

This statement:

quote:

---

He sent his Son Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully man, to rescue us! Jesus lived the perfect life we could never live and then died publicly on a cross, taking our punishment from his Father in place of us! On the third day he rose from the dead – alive for ever– showing that sin (wrong doing and away ness from God) and death had been defeated! Jesus promised that whoever came to him personally asking for forgiveness and trusting in him would be forgiven and accepted as a child of God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you're not a cessationist, do your objections to Pentecostalism revolve uniquely around your perception that they teach a prosperity gospel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does your talk of "sufficiency of Scripture" not mean you discount the idea of divine revelation today? If not, what do you mean by that term?

---

quote:

---

1Pet. 4:11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I see from other parts of the website that there is an emphasis on tongues speaking, visions and prophecy. Certainly I have no difficulty at all with the idea of tongues speaking or prophecy occurring today; I'm no cessationist. Perhaps I'd have some questions about whether such phenomena are seen within New Frontiers as necessary to individual Christian maturity, or if not necessary, whether they are important, or complementary, or useful, or optional (or some combination of these); and, taking a step back, what is meant by "tongues" and "prophecy" and "baptism in the Spirit" anyway. I couldn't see an obvious answer on the site, but will keep looking, or perhaps TUC might like to comment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
As for 'Baptism in the Spirit' I'm happy to try and define it but, as its such a well-known phrase, it makes me wonder whether there's something more behind your question Gordon. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific what it is you're asking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Indeed Wood. In fact, given that everyone I have known who has believed in the Second Blessing and Prosperity Gospel has argued their case from the Bible, it seems to me that they MUST be evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
But still, while we might take issue with the Second Blessing and be properly offended by Prosperity Teaching, there's still been no convincing proof that proves that churches can't be evangelical and still believe these things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That is really quite an idiosyncratic definition of what it means to be evangelical, The Wanderer. Perhaps we now need a new type of evangelical defined as a Wandering Evangelical (WEvo)… However there only seems to be one criteria for being a WEvo, and that is the single solitary claim to find your doctrine in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched or improbable that doctrine might appear to be. Once you've claimed this, it seems you've qualified to be a WEvo, no probs. Unitarians are WEvos. Jehovah' Witness are WEvos. Certain brands of ultra-Orthodox Jews may well be WEvos. That lot in Jonestown, Guyana, 1978, who joined Jim Jones in a mass suicide pact by drinking poison Koo-Aid were WEvos. If I get bumped on the head today and start claiming that according to the Bible, only people whose names are found in the Sydney, Australia White Pages in 2006 will be saved, I would presumably class as a WEvo. .

---

quote:

---

Jim Jones got his idea for his cult from Sayville’s Father Divine. Gonrad Goeringer of the AANEWS said "He saw himself as a west coast version of Father Divine..." while Father Divine was still alive. 10 and according to Maurice Brinton "... Jim Jones was inspired by Father Divine." 11 Jim Jones claimed to be a reincarnation Father Divine 17 and even called his movement “Divine Socialism.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon
… my definition … stands within the historic tradition of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

Jim Jones got his idea for his cult from <snippity snip>...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon
… my definition … stands within the historic tradition of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I suspect where Jim Jones claimed to get his ideas from (certainly in the early days) would differ from where Wikipedia claimed he got his ideas from.

We (you and I) would probably be happier with Wikipedia's version. But that's the whole point, isn't it? At some stage, for the discussion to be other than a sterile "well I'm defining it as this", you have to move on to asking, and in some cases contesting, the claims associated with the definition. I don't mind if people go around claiming to be evangelicals in a broad sense, really. So long as we can then move on to the far more interesting discussion of whether the specifics of what they believe can be found in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
As for 'Baptism in the Spirit' I'm happy to try and define it but, as its such a well-known phrase, it makes me wonder whether there's something more behind your question Gordon. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific what it is you're asking?

---

I would see it as generally synonymous with becoming a Christian, ie baptism in the Spirit = baptism into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, given that none of the three persons of the trinity is separable from the others.

Within Pentecostalism I see it used as a description of some event subsequent to conversion. There are examples in the book of Acts that seem to underlie this claim, but I would say that they are unique to that period of salvation history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Your definition, it seems to me stands only within the tradition of UCCF style evangelicalism. Evangelicalism however existed long before UCCF did, and UCCF is only one flavour of it.

---

quote:

---

First, I think we need a broad definition of evangelical. The one that's most commonly used in the UK (for example, it's in Tomlinsons Post Evangelical), and has been given on the Ship several times is a four point definition:

Emphasis on the Cross, often (but not exclusively) taking a Penal Substititionary Atonement model.
Centrality of Scripture, it's "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct" (could be inerrancy or infallibility)
Importance of conversion, evangelicals believe in a need to make a personal decision to follow Christ.
Activism, the Christian faith is something that results in action - primarily evangelism, though also social action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I suspect where Jim Jones claimed to get his ideas from (certainly in the early days) would differ from where Wikipedia claimed he got his ideas from.

We (you and I) would probably be happier with Wikipedia's version. But that's the whole point, isn't it? At some stage, for the discussion to be other than a sterile "well I'm defining it as this", you have to move on to asking, and in some cases contesting, the claims associated with the definition. I don't mind if people go around claiming to be evangelicals in a broad sense, really. So long as we can then move on to the far more interesting discussion of whether the specifics of what they believe can be found in the Bible.

---

Well, actually the site I linked to wasn't Wikipedia. From what I've read, Jim Jones certainly started off in an Evangelical setting. Later though he moved off into what I would call guruism. When you have a guru, or become a guru, the Bible is no longer your yardstick of authority.

I would say that guruism is a danger for all evangelicals, not just pentecostals and charismatics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I am very happy with Alan's definition, especially as it is wider than the model "evangelicals are those who agree with me" that has been propounded here.

---

quote:

---

Which, in turn raises the question - is the Bible enough? Can Sola Scriptura really work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


TUC, your view of what baptism in the Spirit is not mine, but what would be of interest to me would be how far you insist on such a view as normative for all mature Christians? Should all mature Christians have had the baptism in the Spirit as you understand it, or is it possible to reach Christian maturity without ever having experienced what you describe, or wanting to? Where for example would a John Stott or a Jim Packer fit (both, AFAIK, have never had an experience such as you describe)?

---

I don't know about TUC himself, but I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."

Also, his exposition of the first half of Romans 7 was the best I have heard.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
GC, you asked where the idea "evangelicals are those who agree with me" could be found on this thread. It seems to me that plenty of evidence for this view has been given, but I would draw your attention to comments such as:

quote:

---

If someone asked me to write a DB from scratch, I would add statements that specifically exclude the Hillsong-Pentecostal notion of prosperity and physical wellbeing as a near-certain indicator of God's approval and blessing. I would indicate that suffering rather than prosperity was to be an expected accompaniment of trust in Christ.

Also and FWIW I would almost certainly include a statement that specifically excluded N.T. Wright's understanding of the nature of justification, and reaffirmed a traditional Lutheran understanding.

---

quote:

---

However there only seems to be one criteria for being a WEvo, and that is the single solitary claim to find your doctrine in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched or improbable that doctrine might appear to be. Once you've claimed this, it seems you've qualified to be a WEvo, no probs.

---

quote:

---

Definition: Ultimately evangelicalism may only be defined by appeal to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, which I understand, as an evangelical, to be God’s inerrant-in-what-it-claims-to-be-true word. There is not the smallest detail of Scripture that can be denied by an evangelical as true or authoritative, whilst continuing to claim to be evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


TUC, your view of what baptism in the Spirit is not mine, but what would be of interest to me would be how far you insist on such a view as normative for all mature Christians? Should all mature Christians have had the baptism in the Spirit as you understand it, or is it possible to reach Christian maturity without ever having experienced what you describe, or wanting to? Where for example would a John Stott or a Jim Packer fit (both, AFAIK, have never had an experience such as you describe)?

---

I don't know about TUC himself, but I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."

Also, his exposition of the first half of Romans 7 was the best I have heard.

---

Yes I do think that being filled with the Spirit should be normative for all Chrsitnas but I do not believe that being filled with the Spirit is the only way of being gifted by God and there are many, many fine Christians who would not claim to be so filled. Its not a qualification badge. It is a power to help you live the christian life. There are some Christians who are particularly gifted from God anyway and achieve a lot from that (one does have to wonder how much even more they might achieve for the kingdom if they were filled with the Spirit too).

With reference to Terry Virgo's comments, whilst I don't know the detail of what he said, I suspect it owuld be osmething similar ot what i have heard him say before-that where believers have genuinely reached different views from scripture then, whilst still being very clear about what one believes and not shifting from that, it is clearly right to respect and accept that with different views as fellow followers of Christ. Moreover, even where we disagree, there may be many other areas where we can learn from each other. Indeed we need each other as part of the body of Christ as no one indivdual or group has everything. I placed a link on another thread that reflects this principle and it is still relevant here
Eirenic That'll be my word of the week ...
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Could you clarify? as in what you mean by "UCCF evangelicalism"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Guruism can also be institutionalised as well, IMO.
Could the Catholic Church said to be a guru?

Could a certain accepted theological view not become a guru?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Yes I do think that being filled with the Spirit should be normative for all Chrsitnas but I do not believe that being filled with the Spirit is the only way of being gifted by God and there are many, many fine Christians who would not claim to be so filled. Its not a qualification badge. It is a power to help you live the christian life. There are some Christians who are particularly gifted from God anyway and achieve a lot from that (one does have to wonder how much even more they might achieve for the kingdom if they were filled with the Spirit too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Could you clarify? as in what you mean by "UCCF evangelicalism"?

---

Hi Leprechaun,

Maybe you should ask Gordon, as he seems to be the expert on UCCF evangelicalism and he has agreed with my analysis on that point.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."

---

I'm not sure he would say the same thing at a conference of his own movement. In fact I'm pretty sure he wouldn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Yes I do think that being filled with the Spirit should be normative for all Chrsitnas but I do not believe that being filled with the Spirit is the only way of being gifted by God and there are many, many fine Christians who would not claim to be so filled. Its not a qualification badge. It is a power to help you live the christian life. There are some Christians who are particularly gifted from God anyway and achieve a lot from that (one does have to wonder how much even more they might achieve for the kingdom if they were filled with the Spirit too).

---

Your answer seems to rest on the assumption that there is a particular way to become filled with the Spirit and something that provides evidence of such filling. Or have I misunderstood you? I ask, in particular, because of your reference at the end of the quoted paragraph to "gifted" Christians who, you assume, are not "filled with the Spirit". How do you know they are not?

Thomas

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure he would say the same thing at a conference of his own movement. In fact I'm pretty sure he wouldn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm simply saying that the version of evangelicalism I represent is not solipsistic but has its roots in the mainstream British evangelical tradition of the last 100 years. It's a fairly modest claim which Gracie has picked up on but you seem to still be struggling with.

---

quote:

---

Not a big point, but I'm curious. What is the evidence for your view?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:


But It is clear that he envisions the movement as committed to certain evangelical distinctives as central, and other NFI/Pentecostal disctinctives as secondary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

The only thing I have so far objected to with regard to Pentecostalism is the variant that involves prosperity gospel. If you want me to go into detail about why prosperity gospel is offensive and unbiblical and therefore unevangelical (and I've already asserted that evangelicalism needs to be biblical), then I will. But so far no-one has leapt to the defence of prosperity gospel. Perhaps you would like to?

---

quote:

---

Assuming what Lep and TUC have said is accurate concerning the New Frontiers group (and I have no reason to assume that it isn't), they sound like they would be evangelical.

Were they to insist on their distinctives as essentials, I would have a difficulty (sounds like Lep might too).

There you go Gracie, how about that?

---

quote:

---

It is clear in the NT that baptism in the Holy Spirit always produces visible fruit-not necessarily tongues-it could be new boldness to witness, gifts of healing etc. No one ever seems to be left in any doubt that the Holy Spirit has come upon them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered
I did actually originally consider adding to my reply that some may be baptised in the spirit without them recognising it and I think that may be possible. My hesitation lies in the fact that the NT it always seems pretty clear that the given moment that the spirit had come upon individuals by different manifesations at that time. Clearly there have been individuals who have been baptised in the spirit without them being aware of that particular jargon-John Wesley would be a good example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

Your claim that your version of evangelicalism is not solipsistic is also made in the article by Mark Thompson which you linked to earlier in the thread.

---

Aha! You acknowledge there are two of us!

quote:

---

Gracie:Well I'm not going to defend the prosperity doctrine because as I've already said I find it just as abhorrent as anyone else around here. I do think though that I could show objectively how they come to their conclusions from the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:You think that disqualifies them from calling themselves evangelical because you think that "evangelical" and 'biblical" are cognates.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:Most other people do not see these words as being synonymous, so that you can be evangelical, whilst holding to some doctrines that are not biblical.

---

quote:

---

Gracie said:

quote:

---

Gordon said:
There you go Gracie, how about that?

---

Well it would depend what you mean by "essentials".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Almost true. I qualify this by saying that it is possible to disagree on some issues (eg the age of the earth, the date of the return of Christ) and still be evangelical, even if mistaken (ie, you thought you were getting the Bible right on this, but you weren't). It is possible, in other words, to be evangelical and disagree on inessentials. Prosperity gospel would be an area that I have suggested is non-trivial, and as yet I've failed to get anyone to dispute this. Attitude to baptism in the spirit, as expressed by New Frontiers ('though I note your disagreement), looks to be one of those inessentials…

Exactly. Still, "what do you mean by essentials?" is a meaningful question, and I've given you an example of something I would say is (prosperity doctrine) and something I would say isn't (baptism in the Spirit as potentially but not necessarily subsequent to conversion). Looking at specific pointers like this seems a useful way forward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
So it does come down to the definition of what is seen as being essential. So how you do you decide? What criteria do you use?

And where exactly do you perceive us to be in disagreement about New Frontiers?

---

On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.

On the first question, some issues are easy and I've already made reference to them. The ecumenical creeds, the UCCF DB, and Reformed documents such as the 39 Articles, Heidelberg catechism, Westminster confession etc would capture the essence of these.

The trouble is that what might normally be considered an inessential could, under certain circumstances, shift and become essential. Suppose I inhale too much lead exhaust from the cars on the way to the office of Matthias Media, and arrive having fully convinced myself that if everybody shared the spiritual blessing of dying their hair blonde, they would be better, more powerful and effective in their Christian lives.

Suppose in addition, due to my small-c charismatic personality and the general gullibility of Sydney folk that I managed to persuade a number of other people similarly, so that you suddenly had a church of blonde people who went around teaching that the quickest way to salvation was to dye your hair blonde and spend your time on the beach, preferably Bondi, but could be Brighton or any handy beach.

Suppose in addition I taught that this was clearly based on Scripture (let's say Gen 27:11), and that those who denied the blessing of blondeness were consigning themselves to spiritual ineffectiveness and could even be resisting the work of God.

If my new-fangled teaching took off in Christendom more broadly, you would then have a doctrine of blondeness which started off as completely trivial and utterly irrelevant (I'm assuming here that the bible doesn't mandate a hair colour for christians), to something that had started to assume real significance. If enough people became convinced of my blonde heresy, then you might eventually argue that it had become such a distraction from the gospel (a "gospel plus" heresy) that it was essential to Christian belief that this blonde teaching be denied by the church.

You may think this example is ridiculous (well, OK, it is but it's been a long week and my girls have been sick!). But substitue "circumcision" for "dying your hair blonde" and you will see how somthing that is inessential could actually become essential (Gal 5:2).

Back on OP, I would say that if apparent Pentecostal distinctives such as speaking in tongues, second blessing theology, necessity of miracles of healing and so forth were to be insisted upon as essential (rather than simply helpful or possible) parts of the Christian life, this would be a matter of a concern because it would be adding to the gospel. It would then become essential to defining the gospel to deny this latest addition to it. (That's not what I hear New Frontiers as doing, by the way, but I'm no expert)
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.

---

quote:

---

On the first question… some issues are easy and I've already made reference to them. The ecumenical creeds, the UCCF DB, and Reformed documents such as the 39 Articles, Heidelberg catechism, Westminster confession etc would capture the essence of these… etc…

Back on OP, I would say that if apparent Pentecostal distinctives such as speaking in tongues, second blessing theology, necessity of miracles of healing and so forth were to be insisted upon as essential (rather than simply helpful or possible) parts of the Christian life, this would be a matter of a concern because it would be adding to the gospel. It would then become essential to defining the gospel to deny this latest addition to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.

---

I have no doubt of Leprechaun's account either. I also know for a fact and from personal experience that within the movement these things are taught as normative experience for all believers, as has been confirmed by TUC. I have been in more than one meeting where everyone has been instructed to speak in tongues.

---

I'm very sorry - I really didn't mean to cast any doubt on Gracie's experiences, only to say that by the head of NFI's comments and involvement in a particular interdenominational movement, I thought his position was something.

Gracie obviosuly has far more experience of the movement than I, and I don't want to doubt the veracity of her clearly far more extensive experiences of the group of churches than me.

[ 17. September 2005, 13:31: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
No problem, Leprechaun.
 

---

Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.

---

I have no doubt of Leprechaun's account either. I also know for a fact and from personal experience that within the movement these things are taught as normative experience for all believers, as has been confirmed by TUC. I have been in more than one meeting where everyone has been instructed to speak in tongues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Without probably having been at the same meetings you've been at Gracie, I suspect that it depends what sort of interpetation you put on a given situation. If, for example, the person leading a meeting says 'let's all worship the Lord in the tongues He has given us', I wouldn't say that they are 'instructing' people to speak in tongues-if someone hasn't got the gift of tongues or doesn't want to participate, how could you 'instruct' them to, and how would someone relectantly speaking in tongues be any sort of worship to God anyway? All the worship leader would be doing is guiding the next step of worship in the just the same way 'let's sing number 22'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Without probably having been at the same meetings you've been at Gracie, I suspect that it depends what sort of interpetation you put on a given situation. If, for example, the person leading a meeting says 'let's all worship the Lord in the tongues He has given us', I wouldn't say that they are 'instructing' people to speak in tongues-if someone hasn't got the gift of tongues or doesn't want to participate, how could you 'instruct' them to, and how would someone relectantly speaking in tongues be any sort of worship to God anyway? All the worship leader would be doing is guiding the next step of worship in the just the same way 'let's sing number 22'.

---

TUC, I completely agree that it doesn't make sense to speak in tongues if you haven't got that gift. However if the aim is corporate worship, to take your analogy, what would be the point of announcing a song that not everyone can sing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
[QUOTE]
[qb]
Anyway I was thinking more of leaders' prayer meetings, where "apostolic leaders" said "Come on now, everybody speak in tongues". I maintain, that the most generous interpretation I can have of this, is that they fully expect that speaking in tongues is the normative experience of mature Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Well, as a good friend of mine once said "Chacun met ses plus où il veut", which being translated means "Everyone has some form of Gospel plus". For example there are things the Anglican church insists on (for example ordained priests, particular clothing for priests at certain times, consecration of bishops…) which in my opinion are not Biblical. However that does not lead me to say that it's impossible to be an evangelical and an anglican.

---

quote:

---

I would also say that your "Gospel of suffering" (which is about as oxymoronic as you can get in my opinion) is no more biblical than the prosperity gospel. It seems to me that in your desire to flee the one, you have fallen into error at the opposite extreme.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Gracie:
As far as I can see from the New Testament, the Christian is promised persecution if he lives for the Gospel, but also great blessing in this life as well as in the hereafter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

---

*cough*Jensen*cough*Tom Wright*cough*Gumbel*cough*

---

quote:

---

And re: persecution. Well, Gordo, me old koala-baiter, the Christian is promised persecution... but can you honestly, hand on heart say you've been persecuted, and that your colleagues at Matthias Media have too?

---

Not telling.

But God keeps his promises, and "all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). I always tell people who read this verse and feel disappointed at missing out not to worry, God is faithful and if he promised it it will certainly happen. So don't be sad, just be patient.

Anyway what's the preoccupation with physical suffering, Woodster? I don't deny that it's real suffering, but suffering in hell will be just as real and I suspect that physical suffering will be the least of it.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Gordon has already said (on the thread giving rise to this one) that he doesn't consider N.T. Wright an evangelical, for reasons having to do with +Wright's theory of the atonement, but declined to give specifics.

ETA: cross-posted with Gordon.

[ 20. September 2005, 05:09: Message edited by: Sienna ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I would be delighted to give specifics. But I will wait until this thread has run its course, and starting Friday I'll be away for two weeks with limited internet access.

I think Wright's attempt to overturn the Reformed understanding of justification is confused and confusing. he appears to rely on a reconstruction of Palestinian Second temple Judaism that is somewhat overconfident in asserting what Jesus' and Paul's contemporaries 'must' have believed.

But I don't have time to argue two threads simultaneously, and soon won't have any time at all for a couple of weeks, so I'll defer with apologies.

[ 20. September 2005, 05:16: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
My (limited) experience of NewFrontiers is very mixed. There are people and congregations, posibly a majority, that I would regard as thoroughly evangelical. And there are ones I would regard as not evangelical at all, usually because they are so obsessed with the external manifestations that they hardly spend any time with the Bible.

My experience (NF and others) is still firmly that, by most definitions of "evangelical" there are self-described pentecostals who are and there are self-described pentecostals who aren't.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Well, with respect, if it's going to be an explanation of how you disagree with Wright's interpretation of Scripture, or that you find it confused or confusing, then we're still left with:

1. One can't be mistaken in interpretation of Scripture and be an evangelical; and/or 2. asserting what Paul or Jesus believed overconfidently prohibits one from being an evangelical (unless you're correct in what you're asserting, presumably - see no. 1 above).

So it sounds like it would be a re-hash of this thread and several others in terms of "defining" evangelicals, just with different specifics, so I'm not entirely sure what it would accomplish - (although Second Temple Judiasm features heavily in one of my classes next month, so perhaps I'd get some homework assistance/an essay out of it. )
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting Gracie-that no one should encourage people to speak in tongues in worship because some can't? … Tongues is the most common evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit in the NT so I would not say it is unreasonable for them to assume that most people at such a meeting can speak in tongues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon:

Of course ordination, funny clothes and consecration of bishops is unbiblical. And in those bits of the Anglican church which insist that the acceptance of such things are part of the gospel… it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Nonsense. all that shows is that you've not understood what I was saying. This is what I think:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Are there any places in the Anglican church where priests do not have to wear special clothes in order to consecrate the bread and the wine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Are there any places in the Anglican church where priests do not have to wear special clothes in order to consecrate the bread and the wine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
Well, with respect, if it's going to be an explanation of how you disagree with Wright's interpretation of Scripture, or that you find it confused or confusing, then we're still left with:

1. One can't be mistaken in interpretation of Scripture and be an evangelical;

---

quote:

---

Sienna:
So it sounds like it would be a re-hash of this thread and several others in terms of "defining" evangelicals, just with different specifics, so I'm not entirely sure what it would accomplish - (although Second Temple Judiasm features heavily in one of my classes next month, so perhaps I'd get some homework assistance/an essay out of it. )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
I'm not sure that all prosperity teachers would insist that prosperity is necessary for salvation.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:

Actually you'll notice that you've quoted what I think.

---

quote:

---

Gracie:
I was summarising your position from your posts way up on page 2 where you say that suffering is a necessary entailment of the gospel and will characterise the life of the believer. No talk about blessing there.

There again maybe you've changed your mind since then, and haven't thought to say so.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by the Lord Jesus:
Matt. 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by the Lord Jesus:
How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ... Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

<snip>

Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

---

quote:

---

I mean really, how can you read words like this and think you can get prosperity gospel out of the Bible, much less claim that it is genuinely evangelical?

---