|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Evangelical slide into Fundamentalism
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Although the term had not been invented at that time, I think open evangelical is where I came from (see my first post above). My issues with it were:
1. As I outlined above, most church members didn't know where they were on the spectrum of evangelicalism or that other options existed.
2. The church's method of approaching the Bible was not specified, explained, published or preached on.
3. There seemed to be no fixed rules or consistency on how to interpret the Bible. Often it seemed that it was interpreted literally (in a fundamentalist manner?) until it became inconvenient to do so, at which point one starts to introduce cultural context and criticism as reasons to reach another interpretation.
It was these reasons that led me to taking the further step of questioning the actual nature of the Bible and led me to my "liberal evangelical" position (although that term doesn't seem to be used much these days and often refers to early 20th-century approaches now seen to have had their day).
It seems to me that the first two points may just be Sins of Ommission rather than weakness of the model. We all have to work out our theological positions ourselves - i'm not sure being moulded into the 'house style' whatever it is is a good thing.
Point 3 is important - is it an unanchored model (ship) which floats off with every wind of doctrine. Well it certainly can be. But I dont see how reading scripture with more idea of Language and Social Context is a bad thing. It clarifies how the original recipient saw things. We wouldnt have been so concrete about Homoexuality for one thing...........
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[Billy Graham] has always been very unpopular with Calvinist evangelicals, also.
When I was in my university's Evangelical Union during the late sixties, just prior to a Graham crusade in Australia, a Calvinist student protested that, "It's wrong for him to go around telling people that God loves them, because it might not be true!"
It must be difficult for Calvinists to evangelise effectively, if that's the position they take.
I've read that evangelical revivals have tended to be more Armenian than Calvinist in flavour, and that they've had the effect of making Calvinistic denominations more Armenian. As a non-theologian, this leads me tentatively to consider that Armenianism is more thoroughly evangelical than Calvinism. Calvinists can be very liberal or fundamentalist, or anything in between, because what really matters to them is that they've already been chosen by God. Armenianism seems to have a greater focus on the human response.
I'd like to know how more knowledgeable people see the connection between these two theological positions and evangelicalsm/fundamentalism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting reflections ...
@Mudfrog, I can certainly think of RCs and Orthodox people I know who would fit your definition of 'evangelical' - albeit fairly loosely when it comes to the emphasis on the atonement in the case of the Orthodox. As you know, they take a different view of this to what we tend to be used to in the West.
Does this still fit your schema?
I think the etymological sense of evangelical applies in these cases, of course (with apologies to Etymological Evangelical for nicking his moniker) ie. concern for the Gospel.
But an emphasis on personal faith isn't the sole preserve of evangelicalism, although I will certainly concur that it is one of the hallmarks of evangelicalism and one of its defining features.
I know you wouldn't 'restrict' what you might call 'a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ' to Protestant evangelical Christians and, if I understand you correctly, you would see it in terms of having a 'lively' and conscious faith - irrespective of the particular background and tradition. I'd be on the same page as you are on all of that, except I do wonder about the issue of atonement models.
Some of the Orthodox seem to me to be 'evangelical' in all respects other than that of signing up to particular penal substitutionary views or even vicarious views of the atonement per se ...
I s'pose that's a question for them rather than for you, though.
@SvitlanaV2 - I'm neither a theologian nor historian but I have read widely around the whole issue of 'revival' - seeing as revivalism was a big deal in the tradition where I've spent a fair proportion of my time.
It struck me that what is generally termed 'revival' can occur and flourish equally in Calvinistic or Arminian circles - only the Calvinists would tend to claim that 'their' revivals were more the genuine article than the latter ...
Some of the great examplars of 'revival' have been Calvinists, of course - notably Jonathan Edwards in Massachusetts, Hywel Harris in Wales and indeed the various Welsh revivals over the years occurred in a broadly Calvinist context. As you'll be aware, it was Calvinistic Methodism rather than Wesleyan Methodism that held sway in the Principality.
What strikes me, though, about 'revivalism' in general from the historical accounts is that there is most definitely a sense of hyperbole around the numbers involved. The great Awakening and so on only appeared to affect around 40 or so people in Jonathan Edwards's parish it would appear - but perhaps a statistically significant proportion of the population at the time.
C H Spurgeon saw large numbers attending his Metropolitan Tabernacle in the late 19th century and he was as resolutely Calvinist as they come.
I would suggest that 'revival' and 'revivalism' is a broadly Protestant phenomena per se and doesn't really have a direct equivalent in RC or Orthodox circles - although one could argue that particular movements in 13th century Italy and the activities of Fr Zosima in 18th century Greece shared characteristics of what Protestants would call 'revival'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the broader issue of the influence of Calvinist and Arminian theologies on evangelicalism/fundamentalism - well it seems axiomatic that contemporary evangelicalism (of all stripes) is the descendant of both.
It wasn't for nothing that the now-defunct evangelical book retailer was called Wesley Owen - it was meant to reflect the twin strands - Wesleyan revivalism and Puritanical biblicism (as represented by John Owen).
I suppose what it was meant to represent was heart and head, or head and heart.
Contemporary evangelicalism has inherited aspects of both theological positions. Indeed, within the Baptist tradition you can see both represented in almost equal measure - although the more Calvinistic types can tend to hive off and become independent.
The Arminian strand has entered evangelicalism largely from Wesleyan routes. I sometimes wonder, though, how much John and Charles Wesley would recognise within contemporary evangelicalism. Older Arminians,such as Archbishop Laud would certainly shake their heads at it ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Laud was a very different type of Arminian...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, indeed, although the Wesleys were a lot 'higher' in their ecclesiology than many of their spiritual descendants - and they also had a more 'developed' eucharistic theology than would be the norm about many 'memorialist' evangelicals ...
Of course, the Wesleys drew on Puritan sources as well, but they were effectively old fashioned High Churchmen of an Arminian rather than a 'High and Dry' Calvinistic bent.
All these people we're talking about were effectively pre-evangelical rather than evangelical in the contemporary sense.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
I think you are confusing being Evangelical with being evangelistic. Not the same thing.
Indeed, one can be 'evangelistic' about saving the tiger.
And in the secular world 'evangelical' is confused with 'evangelistic' in precisely this way. Someone might be described as "evangelical about saving the tiger". I don't think this has particularly negative connotations.
As the late John Stott said: "evangelistic describes an activity, evangelical describes a theology."
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Evangelical describes a theology, but it also is a group label; it denominates a group. A group that has theological underpinnings and for the most part much theology in common, to be sure. But the word does not merely mean believing this-and-such list of things.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, indeed, although the Wesleys were a lot 'higher' in their ecclesiology than many of their spiritual descendants - and they also had a more 'developed' eucharistic theology than would be the norm about many 'memorialist' evangelicals ...
Of course, the Wesleys drew on Puritan sources as well, but they were effectively old fashioned High Churchmen of an Arminian rather than a 'High and Dry' Calvinistic bent.
All these people we're talking about were effectively pre-evangelical rather than evangelical in the contemporary sense.
Would you say therefore that 'evangelical' (as opposed to 'Evangelical', which meant and still means Lutheran on the Continent) is a label only properly applied after the mid 18th Century (Whitefield, Edwards, etc)?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Thanks for that!
There have been Calvinist evangelists, yet if, as Kaplan said, Calvinists don't believe that God necessarily loves everyone, it must make the Calvinist approach to evangelism a different kind of thing. Or maybe it depends on the kind of Calvinist?
quote:
It wasn't for nothing that the now-defunct evangelical book retailer was called Wesley Owen - it was meant to reflect the twin strands - Wesleyan revivalism and Puritanical biblicism (as represented by John Owen).
It's interesting to learn how the name came about! But there's still a branch of Wesley Owen going strong in Birmingham. It was the SPCK bookshop that closed.
quote:
The Arminian strand has entered evangelicalism largely from Wesleyan routes. I sometimes wonder, though, how much John and Charles Wesley would recognise within contemporary evangelicalism. Older Arminians,such as Archbishop Laud would certainly shake their heads at it ...
Well, what would the Wesleys recognise in contemporary Methodism? According to the Methodist Church Life Profile 2001 far more Methodists identify as 'evangelical', and also as 'moderate' than as 'liberal' - but the majority of those questioned didn't identify with any of the options given.
What this thread shows is that a term like 'evangelical' can change its meaning considerably over time. It also seems to mean different things in different contexts. This interesting blog gives some indications as to the differences between evangelicalism in Anglican and Methodist circles - although pinpointing the exact differences isn't straightforward:
http://pambg.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/what-is-methodist-evangelical.html
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@SvitlanaV2, I'll look up that blog when I have more time. My impression is that evangelicalism within the Anglican communion is a different beast to its Methodist cousin, but I'd be hard pushed to put my finger on exactly what the differences are ...
On the Calvinist thing that Kaplan mentioned, I suspect the comment came from a particular form of dyed-in-the-wool double-predestinarian 'Black Calvinist'. Most Calvinists I know would say that God loves people and that 'common grace' ie. the sun and rain upon the righteous and the unrighteous is proof positive of that.
So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...
A Calvinist will come along in a minute and tell us how it is possible for God to love mankind (beyond the threshold of the Elect) and yet predestine the Reprobate to eternal punishment at one and the same time. It probably has something to do with his justice and sovereignty, the 'Crown Rights of Jesus Christ' and so on ... some Scholastic legal nicety or other ...
@Matt - yes I would. I think it's anachronistic to use the term evangelical in the modern sense before the 1750s.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Wesley would not have recognised mid-Nineteenth century Methodism either! These Methodists would almost certainly not have agreed with his sacramental theology either and one of the reasons that General booth found it easy to dispense with sacraments is that Methodism had largely done it as well! The step of ceasing to practice them already was just one more logical step from Methodism in the 1880s anyway.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel:
Does it matter when you decide judgement if you always know with certainity what someone will do?
There are problems with omniscience for any Arminian. Either God is omnisicient in which case he is just giving judgement that he always knew he would give or God isn't omniscient.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There is a Third Way, Jengie Jon, Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit ...
The whole Arminian/Calvinist thing only works in the context of a Westernised, Augustinian influenced theology ... it's not an issue at all for our Orthodox brethren as you well know. I might be naive but it is one of their tendencies that I find most endearing (equally, though, they have tendencies which drive me up the wall).
The whole 'pray like a Calvinist, work like an Arminian' thing seems right to me.
I am teasing some of our more Calvinist friends, of course, I'm certainly not one of those who demonises Calvinists - heck, I was that way inclined myself at one time - largely in reaction against a kind of anthropocentric Arminianism that tended to prevail in charismatic evangelical circles.
The best way to deal with both full-on Arminianism and full-on Calvinism is to kick both into touch if you ask me and declare the whole thing a Divine Mystery. Then we don't have to bother ourselves about it unduly ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Qualifying my earlier comments about when it would be historically correct to refer to 'evangelicalism' in the more modern sense, then I'd probably put it back into the 1730s - with Wesley's 'Aldersgate experience' of 1738 - 'My heart was strangely warmed ...'
Although, I would see precursors of this in Puritan spiritual biographies/autobiographies such as Bunyan's 'Grace Abounding'. That said, as Jengie Jon once reminded us, the Puritans didn't put such great store on definitive 'conversion experiences' as they felt that one could be misguided in such matters if it was left to warm, goo-ey feelings and subjectivity.
I'd agree with them on that.
But then, Wesley's own Journals are fairly ambiguous and open to interpretation on the whole issue - his own experiences/spiritual journey certainly don't fit any neatly reductionist evangelical schema. Nor does anyone else's, I suspect. We're all very complex and nuanced individuals and the three-minute sound-bite 'testimony' rarely does justice to the complexity of all this stuff.
I'm not sure it would only be the sacramental issue that Wesley would have found problematic with later evangelicalism. Elements of it he would certainly appraise, I am sure. But he'd feel that there was 'something' missing, but I suspect that this 'something' would vary a bit from place to place and time to time.
But Mudfrog's right, 19th century Wesleyanism had become far less sacramental and so it was only a hop-skip-and-a-jump to William Booth's position.
Booth, Moody and their ilk would have been horrified, I'm sure, though, at the kind of easy-believism fideism that has become the characteristic of certain sections of evangelicalism ... even though their particular evangelistic methods undoubtedly led in that direction ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...
Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...
Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.
Er, not every Christian is a Calvinist.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...
Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.
Er, not every Christian is a Calvinist.
I know that. Everyone bar universalists are faced with the issue that God says he loves everyone, he looks like he could save everyone, but not everyone is saved.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not a universalist and I don't have a problem with the idea that God may not necessarily save everyone ...
The problem I have with the whole Armininian/Calvinist thing is that it's so cut-and-dried, in and out - so dualistic, so binary.
I can live with a whole shed-load of agnosticism on this particular issue.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Everyone bar universalists are faced with the issue that God says he loves everyone, he looks like he could save everyone, but not everyone is saved.
Only if one believes we are saved if we will or no. Or in other words, that we have no choice in the matter that matters.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So you've got this odd thing about God loving everyone but eternally predestinating (if that's the right word) a significant proportion of humanity to eternal hell-fire at the same time. Tough love, I suppose ...
Well, everyone except universalists are going to have an issue with that one.
Er, not every Christian is a Calvinist.
Er, it is perfectly consistent to be a Calvinist universalist.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Isn't this getting into Dead Horse territory?
Going back to the OP, I don't see much evidence that evangelicalism as a whole is sliding into fundamentalism ...
It seems to me it's a two way street and that people travel along that continuum at various stages - not quite in a neatly cut-and-dried 'Fowler Stages of Faith' way, necessarily ... but according to a whole range of factors and experiences.
Certainly I don't see evangelicalism here in the UK sliding into fundamentalism - although there are some strongly fundamentalist strands within certain evangelical circles here, even among those who would vociferously reject the fundie label.
But as Kaplan has wisely said, the term 'fundamentalist' has largely become short-hand for 'anyone who is more conservative theologically than I am.' So on that measure, most evangelicals are going to look pretty fundamentalist to someone of a more full-on liberal persuasion.
I've observed this before on other internet boards (not this one so much) that many of the Orthodox converts I meet seem very fundamentalist in outlook and temperament - and not necessarily only those who come from Protestant evangelical backgrounds. I suspect a certain amount of 'convertitis' comes into play.
I suspect, though, that right across the board there is very little theological education at a popular level so the people in the pews (or lack of pews) are going to tend towards more literal approaches as they haven't been exposed to anything more nuanced.
People believe all sorts of funny things. I met someone from the very liberal and quite erudite catholic-lite parish here a few months back who took the Nostradamus prophecies at face value - not something she'd have picked up from the pulpit.
On the evangelical side of things most people get their theology from the popular paperbacks and, these days increasingly ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) The God Channel and similar TV networks ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Another one:
4: Believing that certain tenets in Christianity are fundamental to your faith (Death and Resurrection of Jesus etc.).
You mean, like the Nicene Creed?
Which makes you not an Evangelical, because it has no mention of the Word.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
oops, sorry if I cross-posted. I didn't realise we were on page 2 already...
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The word or the Word, Hairy Biker?
I don't get what you are driving at. Plenty of evangelicals would sign up for the Nicene Creed, if not the vast majority of them, even those from non-formally creedal settings.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There have been Calvinist evangelists...
George Whitefield! John Newton, the people who founded the Church Missionary Society, Spurgeon, Hiudon Taylor... in fact most of the famous missionaries of the 19th and early 20th century.
quote:
... yet if, as Kaplan said, Calvinists don't believe that God necessarily loves everyone, it must make the Calvinist approach to evangelism a different kind of thing. Or maybe it depends on the kind of Calvinist?
As the churches inthe Calvinist/Reformed tradition were signficantly more represented in the big Protestant push for world-wide evangelism, compared to their numbers, its pretty obvious that if it depends on the kind of Calvinist, the ones who were doing it were not Kaplan's kind of Calvinist.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Does it matter when you decide judgement if you always know with certainity what someone will do?
There are problems with omniscience for any Arminian. Either God is omnisicient in which case he is just giving judgement that he always knew he would give or God isn't omniscient.
Quite.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
To me Fundamentalists would believe in Young Earth Creationism, and in a pre-millennial view of eschatology, insisting that you cannot be an Evangelical, or even a Christian, if you don't believe in both of these.
Its not true that all fundamentalists (never mind other evangelicals) are either YEC or pre-millenialists.
As a mild historical aside, YEC wasn't characteristic of even Southern US fundamentalists till the 1960s - the earlier 20th-century YECies tended to be Sevent Day Adventists or Lutherans, then it became more popular among the Pentecostals, and spread from the to the self-described Fundamentalists. Premillenialism has a longer history among them but its still a matter of controversy. It was beleived by Adventists of course, but popularised by the Scofiield Reference Bible in the early 20th century.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
...and the vast majority of biblical miracle stories are taken at face value.
I take these at face value, because they're presented that way in the text. I'm not, however, an ultra-literalist Six 24 Hour Day Creationist because the 31 verse Hebraic poem that kicks matters off seems to be of a different order than water to wine, a friend raised from the dead in public, fire from heaven, thousands fed from one family's lunch. These are miracles presented as literal miracles, there doesn't seem to be a hint of metaphor there (though they probably have spiritual meanings beyond the story themselves, that's part of their beauty).
What has always bothered me no small amount are the people (and I'm not necessarily counting you, anteater, among their ranks, I simply don't know your personal beliefs) who accept the existence of a God Who created the universe and who-knows-what beyond, yet they somehow stumble over believing that such a God could do such a simple manipulation of that universe to provide evidence of His existence.
It would be like me watching Tiger Woods rip shots 350 yards, yet not believing he could drop a one inch putt. It short circuits my legally-trained mind.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
If Evangelical = "tell the people the Good News, fer God's sake, save them! help them! Do it!"
And if Fundamentalist = "Have you tried your best to find out what the most reliable oldest manuscripts said about things? That's fundamental. Do you understand that the original people who first read/heard the passages might've understood things differently than you do? You have? That's fundamental.
OK, in that context, knowing that inerrancy lies in the Lord -- live by the Scripture, as it applies to you today. Do it! Now!"
And if Creationist = "Yaweh did it. Don't worry if you can't explain everything about how. Ask Him later. Get on with following Him. Do it!"
If those things add up, then that's the way I am. It's too bad words go through a process of change sometimes. They don't always keep the meaning their roots had. As I understand the history of the words, I am an Inerrantist and a Fundamentalist, a Creationist and an Evangelical. Yay me!
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There have been Calvinist evangelists, yet if, as Kaplan said, Calvinists don't believe that God necessarily loves everyone, it must make the Calvinist approach to evangelism a different kind of thing. Or maybe it depends on the kind of Calvinist?
Yes, it does.
Calvinists are not homogeneous, and I have even met a strongly Calvinist minister who rejected the Calvinist dogma (Edwards, M'Cheyne)that the saved are going to rejoice and exalt for eternity in the sufferings of the reprobate whom they knew and loved in this life.
The undergraduate to whom I referred came from a Presbyterian splinter group, and might well have been going through an extremist adolescent stage.
As Ken and others have pointed out, there have been many Calvinist missionaries (what is your evidence for Taylor's Calvinism, Ken?)and evangelists, and no doubt some of them believed the Bible's message of God's universal love.
Calvinist evangelism is distinctive, however.
As Packer points out in his Evangelism And The Sovereignty Of God, because he is bound to a limited atonement, a Calvinist evangelist cannot preach that Christ died for the sins of each member of his audience, and has to therefore preach that his unregenerate hearers will ask God to save them by enabling them to put their trust in Christ.
This might well result in a subjective experience of conversion, but a Calvinist can never rest the assurance of his or her salvation on the objective word of God ("and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world") and can therefore never be sure whether he or she is really saved.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's interesting, Kaplan, because, as you'll be well aware, the Calvinists would say the same about the Arminian position ... it holds out no ultimate assurance of salvation.
The logic of the Calvinistic schema is that it is ultimately 'kinder' than the Arminian one in that at least SOME people are going to be saved (in whatever quantity the Elect happen to be) whereas it's the Arminian one that is 'cruellest' in that is doesn't ultimately hold out any water-tight possibility of anyone being saved ...
These are all circular arguments. I'd also suggest, in a thread that I am about to start, that the various positions (and Ken'll hate this) tend to appeal to different personality types.
The Calvinist one seems rather 'aspie' and Mr Spock-ish to me ... the Alan Turing of the Protestant spectrum ...
@Janine
Well, yay - but I think you'll find that some of the Fundies claim that some of the 'more reliable manuscripts' are older than they actually are. The converse is true, of course, at the more liberal end where they feel duty bound to give later dates.
Get thee to a seminary ...
Inerrantism is SO 19th century ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's interesting, Kaplan, because, as you'll be well aware, the Calvinists would say the same about the Arminian position ... it holds out no ultimate assurance of salvation.
And that's where they are so wrong:
"We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself."
...in other words, if you're saved, you know it because the Holy Spirit gives assurance and an inner witness.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But, the Calvinists might argue, Mudfrog, we can deceive ourselves ... it's easy to convince oneself of 'assurance' - but we might be deceived ...
I've got no particular 'beef' for or against the 'witness of the Spirit' - God's Spirit testifying with our spirits that we are children of God and so on - but it can stray into the realm of the subjective and that's why some Calvinists are wary. I can see their point, too.
'Do not presume, one of the thieves was damned, do not despair, one of the thieves was saved ...'
That's one of the reasons why I don't think that either full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism cut the mustard. They both end up going round in circles.
I'm happy to live with a big dose of Mystery and a certain degree of agnosticism about all of this.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The word or the Word, Hairy Biker?
I don't get what you are driving at. Plenty of evangelicals would sign up for the Nicene Creed, if not the vast majority of them, even those from non-formally creedal settings.
I think Baptists and many other evos would struggle with 'baptism for the forgiveness of sins' unless one can view that statement as purely metaphorical. (But we did this on the other thread last week, didn't we?)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's one of the reasons why I don't think that either full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism cut the mustard. They both end up going round in circles.
I'm happy to live with a big dose of Mystery and a certain degree of agnosticism about all of this.
That's where Wesleyanism comes in - it's neither 'full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism'. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, but I've known Calvinists who've said that the Wesleys were at their best when they inadvertently strayed into Calvinistic territory - some of Charles's hymns certainly do - or at least, can be sung by Calvinist's without them having to cross their fingers behind their back ... oh, I forgot, they wouldn't ever cross their fingers ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's one of the reasons why I don't think that either full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism cut the mustard. They both end up going round in circles.
I'm happy to live with a big dose of Mystery and a certain degree of agnosticism about all of this.
That's where Wesleyanism comes in - it's neither 'full-on Calvinism nor full-on Arminianism'.
This may well be true, but I've come across some interesting articles and commentaries that seem to be fairly critical of John Wesley's influence on later generations of evangelists and church movements.
The feeling seems to be that Wesley's the granddaddy of some far more decidedly Armenian movements which, notwithstanding the fame of the Calvinist evangelists mentioned by ken above, pervaded late 19th and 20th c. evangelical Christianity. I'm thinking particularly of Pentecostalism and of popular approaches towards evangelism, both of which went on to influence the charismatic movement, and consequently many mainstream Protestant churches.
One Calvinist Anglican clergyman holds the very interesting view that Wesley's understanding of the gospel contained the seeds of both liberalism within the Methodist Church and Pentecostalism (which is certainly evangelical) outside it.
I suppose that both Calvinism and Arminianism can develop in either liberal or evangelical directions, but in the modern world, it seems to me that evangelicalism is now mostly dominated by Arminian perspectives.
(I should add that despite a lifetime of churchgoing, I've never heard any clergyman or woman I know speak on this subject, which suggests that 'the experts' don't consider it to be a terribly important issue....)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism but pushing preach it like Wesley believe it like Calvin to the max.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif) That's particularly impenetrable even for you, Martin!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
Why do so many threads degenerate into a Calvinist-Arminianism debate? This thread could have been interesting, and now co-opted by people who want to debate the unknowable.
[ 17. July 2012, 14:25: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
Why do so many threads degenerate into a Calvinist-Arminianism debate? This thread could have been interesting, and now co-opted by people who want to debate the unknowable.
If you're accusing me of making the thread less interesting, I apologise. I certainly don't want to debate the unknowable, and I don't have much use for abstract theology. I was simply wondering how Calvinism and Arminianism might influence the development of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, which are real, visible and growing parts of the world church.
As I say, I've never known any preacher in my denomination preach on Calvinism v. Armenianism, and maybe it's rare in other denominations too. Maybe this means that the distinctions have become totally irrelevant to modern Christianity. Fair enough! Maybe the forces of secularisation are so great (in the UK at least) that the churches have to overcome their ancient differences in order to come together to keep churches open and to prevent Christianity from disappearing from the public sphere. Even so, it's apparent that there are still theological differences between churches, although the boundaries are blurred, and denominational distinctions matter less.
In the media, discussions about evangelicalism and fundamentalism are rarely discussed in denominational, or even theological terms. Homosexuality and maybe abortion are the only issues that seem to matter. Nothing else counts. So if public perception is the issue then it's hardly worth talking about anything else, really!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
Why do so many threads degenerate into a Calvinist-Arminianism debate? This thread could have been interesting, and now co-opted by people who want to debate the unknowable.
If you're accusing me of making the thread less interesting, I apologise. I certainly don't want to debate the unknowable, and I don't have much use for abstract theology. I was simply wondering how Calvinism and Arminianism might influence the development of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, which are real, visible and growing parts of the world church.
As I say, I've never known any preacher in my denomination preach on Calvinism v. Armenianism, and maybe it's rare in other denominations too. Maybe this means that the distinctions have become totally irrelevant to modern Christianity. Fair enough! Maybe the forces of secularisation are so great (in the UK at least) that the churches have to overcome their ancient differences in order to come together to keep churches open and to prevent Christianity from disappearing from the public sphere. Even so, it's apparent that there are still theological differences between churches, although the boundaries are blurred, and denominational distinctions matter less.
In the media, discussions about evangelicalism and fundamentalism are rarely discussed in denominational, or even theological terms. Homosexuality and maybe abortion are the only issues that seem to matter. Nothing else counts. So if public perception is the issue then it's hardly worth talking about anything else, really!
Maybe I've made the acquaintance of too many Young Turk NeoCals and have just gotten my fill of it, that may explain my reaction. By the way, I just got taken to task (rightly) for doing the same thing just minutes ago in another thread. So I'm a screaming hypocrite, pay me no mind.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's particularly impenetrable even for you, Martin!
Punctuate it thus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard and repointed by me:
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism, but pushing "Preach it like Wesley - Believe it like Calvin!" to the max.
Seems like a good description of George Whitefield to me!
(Not to mention Newton, Spurgeon...)
[ 17. July 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Apparently, George Whitefield was a better preacher than John Wesley. But John had better organisational skills. That's why his movement took on a recognisable shape and outlived him. In the end, Whitefield realised he hadn't paid enough attention to organising the people he'd evangelised.
We have a similar problem today - we think that great preaching should solve the problems of the church. But the quality of preaching and of preachers will always vary. Furthermore, we live in a culture where every listener feels at perfect liberty to disagree with the sermons they hear. Wesley and Whitefield weren't interested in stimulating polite agreement or disagreement, but in changing people's hearts! Morever, they were preaching in an evangelistic context, not to the same old faces, every Sunday, for 20 years.... Few sermons now share the same lofty revivalist aims, so it seems inappropriate for evangelical Protestants to claim that the sermon is still as meaningful to the church gathering as it was centuries ago.
(These comments hark back to the thread on preaching, but I think they're relevant here.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
As most of us evangelicals are self-determinative about our faith, we slide all over the place into all sorts of things.
Bodies and groups within evangelicalism tend to slide towards fundamentalism simply because control is easier then chaos. That and the medium of extemporaneous prayer and preaching leads itself to doctrinaire discussions, rather then reflective meditation.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Janine: Yes, of course God is inerrant. But God is not the Bible, nor is the Bible God. Or at least it wasn't the last time I looked ...
We worship the Living Word not the written word. We are not bibliolaters.
That's the distinction I'm trying to make, and one I'm sure that you would accept.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Evos are not sliding toward liberalism but pushing preach it like Wesley believe it like Calvin to the max.
I've asked this before: what does that mean??
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It seems to me thatone of the fundamentals of faith that is being increasingly minimalised (minimized?) is that of SIN.
Nineteenth century (and thus into the 1950s) evangelicalism was full of sin and death. They talked about it, preached about it, sang about it.
Nowadays society (and sadly the church too) is obsessed with sex - how to do it, how often to do it and who are you allowed to do it with!
What they never talk about today is sin.
There is no such thing as personal sin anymore.
The things we used to call sins - and what the Bible appears to call sin - are now lifestyle choices!
The only sin nowadays is to be rich or unjust.
What one does, thinks and says, is entirely down to you, your own freedom of choice/expression/speech.
...unless you are criticising someone who is gay, then that for some reason, is a 'hate crime'.
The church therefore seems to have lost something and even the evangelical churches are not talking so much about sin. It's not fashionable, it's not relevant, it doesn'r arouse much interest.
So hardly a slide into fundamentalism - there's no sin, don't worry. Just accept Jesus into your heart and live as you please because 'he accepts you as you are' and we don't want to judge you.
Evangelicals, from my POV seem to focus more on social justice - poverty etc - than personal sin and repentance.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
