|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are Pentecostals Evangelical?
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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?).
This is what I found in the Hillsong statement:
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 ]
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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?
Well, right off the top of my head, official Catholic teaching for one would not agree that "Jesus is the [b]only[/g] one who can reconcile us to God, as they talk about Mary being Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well Gordon, this is the appropriate bit from your classic suit:
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.
And this is yer ironic post-modern version:
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 ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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)
Tiens, tiens.
At the risk of repeating myself:
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
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?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
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.
Another question: how many people equate evangelicalism with living a life of suffering?
Gordon, maybe you didn't understand what I said in my previous post, as I messed up the code which was supposed to make only bold.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
But not, apparently, a firm grasp of how to peruse a website as I missed the scroll bar on the right of the DB, and hence the reference to PSA further down. My bad.
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".
[ 20. July 2005, 15:07: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
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?
I'm as keen as hopefully any evangelical christian to see that churches are biblical and clear on their understanding of salvation but I have to say that your criticism of Hillsong here does seem to be trying to make them jump through hoops. What you seem to be criticising them for is that they have stated (in an arguably imprecise way) standard Chrisitian theology. What are you saying they should do-have some heresy in their statement to justify their existance as a separate group of churches?
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Ken came closest to my historical experience of "Pentecostal" and "Charasmatic." My grandfather helped found Pentecostalism in Northern Pennsylvania in the 1920's and was familiar with the generally-recognized founding events of Pentecostalism in the early 1900's. My father spread Pentecostalism throughout the rural portions of upstate New York from 1950 to 2000 with the US Assemblies of God.
In 1901 Charles Parham claimed that in his Bible College in Topeka Kansas a woman began speaking perfect Mandarin Chinese during one of his services. While the 19th century had seen glossalalia, this was considered an Acts-like replica event. Word spread and in 1906 at the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, people spoke in "heavenly languages" claiming to understand each other perfectly, as if they were speaking to each other in English.
The dominant Pentecostal church in the US and perhaps the world is the AoG. With respect to salvation, it simply comes from "accepting Christ's offer of forgiveness for sin," which is the first of four cardinal doctrines of the US AoG today. This is made possible by "the shed blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God" and is accomplished by "the washing, regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost," which "inwardly witnesses salvation," and is outwardly witnessed by a "life of righteousness and true holiness." So, the Holy Spirit cleanses the "saved" person and they begin living a better life. But they don't yet have power like the disciples did in Acts after Pentecost. That comes with Bapitism in the Holy Spirit, which "empowers believers for witnessing and effective service, just as it did in New Testament times." This is the second "cardinal doctrine" of the US AoG.
"Divine Healing" is the third "cardinal doctrine," and has always been central to traditional Pentecostalism. This is thought to be exactly like the miraculous healings in Acts after Pentecost.
The final "cardinal doctrine" of the US AoG is the Rapture of the Church prior to Jesus' return to earth for his Millennial Reign. In the US, Pentecostalism was an outgrowth of the dispensationalist movement of the 1800's, which originated a Left Behind kind of Pre-Millennial Rapture.
The four "cardinal doctrines" are included in the 16 Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God, which I've quoted from here.
The word "Charismatic" was coined in the 1960's for non-Pentecostals who thought that speaking in tongues was a valid form of prayer and spiritual experience. A Los Angeles Episcopal priest named Dennis Bennet is credited with kicking off this movement.
At least in the US, historically speaking, a Pentecostal is more a "Rapture-believing fundamentalist who also believes that miraculous healings like those in Acts are possible today by those who have been Baptized in the Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues." Some have backed off from public use of tongues and have de-emphasized miracles. Some have wandered into prosperity gospels of all sorts. But that's more of the practice. If you look at a sheet of beliefs, it usually comes out fundamentalist with miracles possible by the power of the Holy Spirit, showing evidence of itself via tongues.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
GC your basic position seems to be that Hillsong aren't evangelical because the cross is not central enough. Others have questioned some of the implications of this (all Christians believe in the efficacy of the cross, does "the centrality of the cross" equal "life is full of suffering"?) but I am curious about your original statement. I have never heard Evangelicalism defined in this way before; normally the distinguishing mark is taken to be a very high view of scripture (which Pentecostalism shares of course). Where does your definition come from and what is the reasoning behind it?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
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?
Not enough.
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".
Two things. First, if it’s true that Christians ought to suffer for their faith, then it is at least considering putting it into a DB, even if you end up making yourself look a right twit. One of the things I believe (as an evangelical) is that my experience is shaped by what I believe, not vice-versa. There are all sorts of reasons why I might not be suffering at the moment. God might be sparing me. I might have misunderstood the nature of suffering. Or quite possibly I am so flabby and apathetic in standing up for what I believe, that Satan would not choose to trouble me, any more than I would choose to cross the road to tread on a slug. There are some real heroes of faith to be causing difficulties for, such as the Christians in Somalia.
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.
The life of suffering is true, a consequence of the gospel rather than central to it, and is probably pretty annoying for someone who wants to say that the Christian gospel is about health, wealth, fitness and prosperity. Given that lots of people seem to have started believing this prosperity gospel, it is probably now worth putting something about suffering into evangelical DBs. But i don't write these things; maybe I should find someone important and take it up with them.
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.
That is what I believe but I don’t want to get overly snarled up with trying to define what an ‘evangelical’ is, on this thread. I’m simply saying that the good folk of Hillsong, many of whom may be very fine Christians, do not in their public teaching appear to display any allegiance to the cross.
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?
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.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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).
I’m not sure that you have understood my point here. Over and above the issue of whether or not Christians can expect to suffer, I was drawing attention to the fact that we appear to have a different understanding of what "the cross" actually means to Evangelicals. I have always thought that when Evangelicals refer to the cross, they are talking about the Cross of Christ and his shed blood, etc. 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.
quote:
Another question: how many people equate evangelicalism with living a life of suffering?
quote:
Not enough.
I'm not quite sure how to understand this, 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.
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.
I would say, that as an evangelical my understanding of my experience, but not necessarily my experience is shaped by what I believe.
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.
Are you sure that was the reason? The virgin birth has been in Christian confessions of faith for much longer than that.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
I agree that debating the finer points of your site would not be on OP.
You claim that Pentecostals in general and Hillsong in particular are not evangelical by your standards because you do not see enough reference to the aspects of suffering implied by "taking up one's cross" in their DB or on their website in general.
I will leave others to continue the debate as to whether this aspect of the christian life is widely understood to be included in "preaching the cross" and whether to do so is the preserve of evangelicals.
I was merely pointing out that if someone who had no direct experience of your christian environment were to attempt to evaluate your own website, they would, at the time of posting, have found only one of the featured books mentioning the cross (and several on the "how-to" theme), and nothing in the DB about suffering.
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?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
Yes but, TUC, it appears that Gordon Cheng doesn't have the same understanding of "the cross" - see my last two posts and his last one.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
Reasonably sure, having heard one of the framers of the DB speak about why and how the UCCF DB was originally put together in the 1930s. Of course I don't deny that it is also traditional. I have yet to be convinced that any major Christian truth stands or falls with the fact of the virgin birth, although I believe it and think we are supposed to believe it.
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?
I haven't claimed that Hillsong are not evangelical on this thread, because the definition of 'evangelical' has not been settled on and because I am trying to limit this thread (for my part) to one discussion. I do claim that the emphasis on health, wealth, bodily fitness, slimness, and prosperity that is indisputably there on the Hillsong website is antithetical to the message of the cross, in that it promises a form of blessing in this life that is not only not promised in the Bible, but is the exact opposite to the demands made by Jesus on his followers and the subsequent apostolic teaching of what the cross-shaped life will look like.
By the way, 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? My understanding from Hillsong reps I've seen and heard in the past, along with reports from a number of sources, would suggest the answer is 'no'. That is, the website represents their position accurately, AFAIK.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
TUC, what you have managed to highlight with these websites is a fascinating and significant split between some of the older style Pente churches and newer setups such as Hillsong. For example, check this article about the Houstons (Brian Houston runs Hillsong) by a Pentecostal minister. The website, though grumpy in tone, is really worth having a bit of a poke around.
It is one of the reasons I am being so careful in deliberately not making sweeping claims about Pentecostalism generally. That said, Hillsong is undeniably an important manifestation of modern Pentecostalism.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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
It appears to me from this exchange, inter alia, that to your mind this is precisely what makes them not evangelical:
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 [...]
While you may not have made that claim directly here, you saw no problem with explaining that position as your own in response to Gracie's question.
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. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
Gordon, I don't think seeing suffering as an inseparable entailment (?) of the Gospel is a particularly Evangelical distinctive. 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.
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 (as it could be argued that the 'health and 'wealth' teaching does) to the exclusion of the former.
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.
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:
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)
Maybe it would be a good idea to have a discussion in Kerygmania, about what these verses actually mean.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
entailment (?)
It is as word I tell you, it is. Don Carson used it one time, so it must be.
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.
Not my point. Suffering, like good works, follow from belief in the gospel as surely as day follows night. Neither suffering nor good works form part of the gospel. Evangelicalism is distinct from Roman Catholicism in that within RCism, good works become a constituent part of the gospel that saves us. But that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish to fry, or a new worm for the early bird to open a can of, and perhaps we should avoid that fascinating alternative path.
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
Undoubtedly. If I were to tell you what evangelicals believe the gospel to be, independently of a discussion about the deficiencies of the Hillsong website, we would possibly begin by talking about God's sovereign and loving creation of the world, and our place in it. Or by talking about the Lord Jesus revealing God in perfect grace and truth. Or all sorts of things, really.
Or if we were to talk about evangelical distinctives as opposed to liberalism, we might talk about the supernatural, and the importance of theism over deism, and the reality of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus and of all who trust in his name.
We're talking about 'suffering' because I raised it as a necessary consequence of belief in the gospel that clearly sets apart evangelical thinking from Hillsong, not because it's the heart of what Christians believe.
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?
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. And thank you for linking to my post, but you'll notice that just a few posts later I also said
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.
Or, to translate it into Purgatorial terms, I'm not inclined to be a word fascist. I use a particular definition of 'evangelical' which I believe is both clear and defensible. 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. If you're operating with a different understanding of what 'evangelical' means, or even just a broader one, then cool bananas. Really. Just so long as we know we are using the same word differently, we can hopefully avoid further confusion.
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'.
On the other hand, downplay the role of the cross of Christ, and its meaning and its consequences for the Christian, and things get a bit stickier.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
OK, so what exactly is your definition of Evangelical?
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.
Well, we could do that once we know what it is.
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.
I don't think I agree with that exactly as it stands – i.e. I don't think it's any old suffering, and I don't think it follows on automatically as soon as one "believes in the Gospel". I don't think Christians are on average poorer than their non Christian counterparts, or that they have more health problems. I think, all things being equal, the opposite is more likely to be the case.
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.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
Seeing as how you wanted to qualify my statement, let me qualify yours. I agree that the reason we suffer matters a great deal. We should most definitely see that the most christian form of suffering is Christian suffering. And in 1 Peter, Peter tells his readers that if they are suffering for being wrongdoers, well, "suck it up, sunshine" (loose translation).
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.
One of the most objectionable features of Hillsong-style Pentecostalism is that it sees our suffering as alien to our earthly experience of being crucified with Christ. He 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:
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.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
Gordon, so to summarize what you think evangelical means, it would be:
- Subscribing to the UCCF doctrinal basis.
- Not being Pentecostal or Charismatic.
- Not subscribing to health and wealth teachings.
However you do yourself admit that:
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…
Why is it important to you to exclude Pentecostals and all Charismatics from evangelicalism? What is at stake here?
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.
I'd already understood that! My question is why it is so important for you to exclude them?
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.
What concerns me here is that you seem to be saying that others who do not think like you on certain issues, do not take their doctrinal assertions 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.
I'm sorry, but I can't see who has glossed over or obscured what here. For me, if someone says they believe the fundamental beliefs in a doctrinal basis or anywhere else for that matter, then I believe that they believe them. I may be of the opinion that they are inconsistent, but I really don't think it's up to me to suggest that they are being dishonest about it. There again, I probably think that a lot of people are inconsistent.
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)
Now there I couldn't agree more, if indeed all the people in UCCF have the same desire as you to exclude charismatics and pentecostals. Mind you I personally can't see anything even implicitly anti-charismatic in it, though I can see why you would think that it is implicitly anti-pentecostal.
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.
In your scheme of things, is there room for a difference between the absolute ordained will of God and the permissive will of God?
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...
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.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
GC: 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)
Once again you amaze me. In the days when I was a card carrying member of UCCF I signed the DB quite happily depsite being wildly charismatic - and so did many others. My view on many things has changed since those days, but I thought the DB was designed to hold together as many types of non-liberal protestants as possible. Until you brought this subject up I had never come across anyone who maintained that charismatics and pentecostalists were not evangelicals, and I'm afraid I'm still not sure why you assert this. Could you spell out what you mean about the UCCF DB excluding charismatics? Maybe that will make things clearer.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Well, yes.
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
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. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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?
That's what he seems to be saying to me. It took me a while to grasp it, that's why I asked for clarification.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
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???
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Now I'm confused. Is there any Christian who doesn't suffer?
I don't think anyone here has claimed that, and I doubt that you'd find such a claim in any self-described Pentecostal literature.
But GC seems to be saying here that his definition of "evangelical" would ideally involve a doctrinal basis in which he would
quote:
indicate that suffering rather than prosperity was to be an expected accompaniment of trust in Christ.
The absence of this explicit assertion in the DB of the Assemblies of God, and its absence on the Hillsong website (Hillsong being part of the AoG denomination in Australia), is what leads Gordon to claim they are not evangelical in his preferred sense of the word.
The apparent novelty of such a position is something everyone else here seems to be trying to get their heads around.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
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. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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?
The last part of the question is very easy to answer. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has put their trust in the Lord Jesus—his death and resurrection—for the forgiveness of their sins; and now expresses that trust in living their lives to the glory of God. The non-Christian doesn't trust Jesus, doesn't acknowledge his lordship, and doesn't live their lives to his glory.
So I am in no way advocating a position that teaches 'salvation by suffering'; any more than I am suggesting that we are saved by our good works, church membership, or partaking in the sacraments.
However, now consider this scenario (bear with me, it'll return to the main point eventually): suppose you might be able to find a Christian who has sex with his father's wife, hates his brothers to the extent of taking them to court to sue them for all they've got, and visits prostitutes regularly, all the while claiming that because his spirit has been redeemed through Jesus' death and resurrection, what he do with his body doesn't matter.
You might even find a church where that exact behaviour is tolerated in the name of grace, and where people take pride in their supposedly forgiving spirit.
Now it is possible that such a church might be Christian, but you might also be tempted to say that they have fundamentally misunderstood some key aspects of what the death, resurrection, and Lordship of Christ means, and how it applies.
Lest you think the example is getting more and more ridiculous, it's the church at Corinth I'm describing here. They have shown by their behaviour and attitudes that they don't understand the cross of Christ; they've flubbed it both in their comprehension of the preaching of the word of the cross (1 Cor 1-2) and in their understanding of the nature of the resurrection (1 Cor 15).
And my point is that similarly, any church which sees suffering as alien to Christian experience, and teaches that Christians should expect to experience in this lifetime wealth, health, prosperity and bodily slimness, show by this teaching that they really don't understand the nature of the cross of Christ
and a right understanding of the cross is what those who traditionally call themselves 'evangelical' are trying to advocate—I can't see that this is a remarkable or novel claim, even if others think that evangelicals get this understanding wrong.
I share Lamb Chopped's confusion, I really am puzzled as to why people would think that there are some people in the world (letting alone whether they are Christians or not) who don't suffer.
For Christians, there will be all of this 'ordinary' suffering that comes from being in the world—the groans of creation (Romans 8:20-23)—together with the additional suffering that comes from being associated with the name of Christ. This general suffering, plus the additional suffering that comes from trusting Jesus, seems to me unavoidable. Jesus promises it, the whole of the New Testament promises it. "Through much tribulation we must* enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). Surely we don't need a list of promises like this to see that the certainty of suffering for the Christian is really there?
[*Greek dia pollwn thlipsewn dei, "through many troubles it is necessary"]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
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.
[tangent] We most certainly do not. That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church - and never has been.[/tangent]
And Gordon Cheng, I'd agree that the Hillsong statement is an unexceptional, if vague, statement of Christianity. As a statement of belief, it does miss a lot out from a Catholic point of view - the rest can be found in the Nicene Creed.
[ 29. July 2005, 00:57: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
I agree entirely that there is something obscene about preaching the Gospel for financial gain. But I'm glad to see that you do not think this is sometbing that evangelicals do not or cannot do. I really don't think that having what is perceived as right doctrine guarantees good motivations and good practice and behaviour. Unfortunately.
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.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
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.
Oh I'm not upset, but the whole Co-Redemptorix movement are trying to take one aspect of Mary as Mediatrix, whose mediation is subordinate to that of Christ (eg as explained by Pope John Paul II) to argue that she is Co-Redeemer and Co-Mediatrix with Christ. No way, no how. The attempts to wrest such a statement out of the Pope were squashed in the last Pontificate. The reason why appears, for example, in the first part of Lumen Gentium.
My understanding of the difference between the Catholic and the evangelical view of Mary is that the evangelicals say that she was the mother of Jesus, but was otherwise a sinful and broken human like the rest of us. Catholic believe in the Immaculate Conception, ie that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. This is a tangent to this thread, so I haven't given a fuller reply. I apologise if I have glossed or misrepresented evangelical belief on the question of Mary. We did have a Purgatory thread a while back: Why isn't Mary mentioned much here?
To try and bring this on track, I don't think the Hillsong Church have even the evangelical position on Mary. I'm not sure they have a position on her at all. If even the Cross isn't on their radar, at least so far as the website goes, then Mary is a complete non-event. This may be another starting point for arguing that they aren't evangelicals but something else.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
No, not ignoring, but sorry for the piecemeal approach. Some bits need a bit more thought in the construction of a reply (not that the other bits are straightforward). Will get back to you.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
OK The Wanderer, back again.
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I thought the DB was designed to hold together as many types of non-liberal protestants as possible.
This is partly true, in that it may be the way the DB has come to be used, but if you read up on the history of the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (as you would know, the roots of UCCF go back to that group) you will see that the doctrinal basis stemmed out of a much more specific debate on the centrality of the atoning death of Christ.
Have a look at this for an evangelical view of events leading to the formation of the UCCF (IVF)—note particularly the debate on the centrality of the atonement and the question that was put to Tissington Tatlow (just scroll down 2 or 3 clicks on the link). 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.
When the founders of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (UCCF as it was at the time) got together to formulate the Doctrinal Basis in the 1930s, they did so in full knowledge of this debate from a couple of decades earlier. They did so with the intention both of including the key doctrinal views of evangelical protestantism, and of excluding certain doctrinal views which they held to be unbiblical, notably Roman Catholicism and liberalism. (I've heard one of those original framers of the DB, Bishop Donald WB Robinson, speak on this matter on a number of occasions)
AFAIK the question of Pentecostalism simply never arose at this time, the number of Pentecostals represented at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1930s being vanishingly small.
The present UCCF DB, with some variations, is what they came up with.
quote:
Could you spell out what you mean about the UCCF DB excluding charismatics? Maybe that will make things clearer.
Here are three statements taken from the DB that I believe exclude Pentecostal views such as those represented by the Hillsong site:
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.
Let me repeat the earlier qualification that defining 'Pentecostal' or 'charismatic' is almost as hard as defining 'evangelical'. My definition of 'charismatic' comes from interaction with charismatics over the last 35 years as well as, in this discussion, what we've said about the Hillsong people. However see my very first post on this thread, in which I acknowledged that some charismatics/Pentecostals either may be or are evangelical, depending on matters of definition. And I certainly believe that there are more Christians than there are evangelicals!
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.
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.
Now I recognize that Pentecostal and charismatic theology has morphed into forms that may well have moved beyond any insistence on 'second blessing'.
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.
I'm also suggesting that a traditional evangelical position sees all the blessings that we could possibly experience as being available in the Bible alone, and that they are experienced as we trust in Christ and the Holy Spirit applies those blessings to our lives. They are given at the moment we trust in Jesus, and apprehended in their fullness when we reach Heaven.
(our ongoing discussion about the present expectation of suffering fits somewhere in here. [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])
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.
More broadly, I have a realistic appreciation that we are not going to be saved by getting our Doctrinal Bases word perfect, but by trust in the living Lord Jesus. There are first-order issues surrounding this that are apparent in matters relating to Pentecostal theology, but sharpening doctrinal statements is just one way of tackling them. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
BTW, the question of whether a charismatic or Pentecostal would be prepared to sign the UCCF DB is of some significance, but I've already mentioned the conversation I had with the man who was prepared to slice bits out of his own (charismatic) doctrinal basis in order to reach agreement. By way of analogy, I can also think of a fair few Anglican clergy who would, without crises of conscience, sign that they assented to the 39 Articles, although they neither understood nor particularly agreed with them.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thank you for your reply GC and for the link. Having read and considered them both I'm afraid I am still unconvinced. Your reading of the DB is possible, but seems forced to me. In particular your depiction of charismatics/pentecostalists valuing experience over scripture strikes me as a caricature; when I moved in such circles a constant theme was that every new "revelation" must be tested against scripture as that alone was trustworthy.
It seems to me that you value your identity as an evangelical very highly. So highly that you are reluctant to share that identity with others of whom you do not approve. I sympathise with this - I dislike the whole prosperity gospel approach and feel it seriously undermines other forms of christian witness - but I don't think the answer is to redfine language to leave them out of the club. Like it or not, the nutters are part of us (how's that for neutral language?); as the Osmonds used to sing: "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch girl".
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
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.
Gordon, you seem to be equating evangelical with CICCU and UCCF. Do you think that these bodies are the only valid manifestations of evangelicalism?
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.
All the Pentecostals I have met and many of the Charismatics totally believe point c. above, which it seems to me is not in fact arguing for the sufficiency of Scripture but the supremacy of Scripture, i.e. as Wanderer has already pointed out, God may use a variety of other means to communicate with us, but all of these must be tested against the yardstick of Scripture. Now in the kind of evangelical church I grew up in, they really did believe in the sufficiency of Scripture rather than the supremacy of Scripture, and believe me it's very different.
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.
I really do think the obligatory 'second-blessing' doctrine is Pentecostal rather than Charismatic. But anyway I still can't see why you are so adamant that they cannot believe h. and i.
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
Not sufficient for what? I've never heard Pentecostals or Charismatics suggest that Jesus' death and resurrection is not sufficient for salvation. What they would say, I think, is that the original conversion experience is not sufficient for our ongoing walk with 0and service for God. I'm sure, you would say the same in other words – you would, I think, consider it to be important to practice the spiritual disciplines of prayer, Bible study, fellowship and maybe some others. Pentecostals and charismatics would include in that list the exercise of spiritual gifts, I think.
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.
If what you say really is the aim of all the members of UCCF than I think it is their responsibility to make that explicit. Even if that is the case though, I'm not sure that UCCF is the only valid expression of evangelicalism.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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])
You might like to note that the Elim pentecostal denomination, with 500 churches, I think all in the UK, and including the 17000-strong Kensington Temple, mentions among its "fundamental truths" its belief in
quote:
the coming King
I think this is explicitly to guard against an over-realised eschatalogy.
For at least the third time of asking (one previous instance in discussion with you here), can you or anyone else provide a historical example of an over-realised eschatology that did not spring from a fundamentally evangelical theology and ecclesiology?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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?
Given that the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology, the answer can only be no and the question seems rather pointless.
All theology is a declension from primitive perfection, or a move back towards it.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Given that most defintions of evangelicalism (but not GC's) talk about a high view of scripture, it could at least be argued that Jesus, Paul and the other epistle writers were not evangelical because of the way in which they re-interpret the OT to meet the needs of their current situation.
On the other hand, given the context of this thread: quote:
the Bible is fundamentally evangelical in theology and ecclesiology
might mean: 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.
But I expect I've made a mistake in my reasoning somewhere.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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?
As I don’t understand what you understand, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking me to explain. But, perhaps foolishly I’ll have a go anyway.
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.
Let me say that my "definition" of an evangelical, especially the DB part of it, is more like an identikit picture than it is a definition true in every respect and in every situation. That is, it's not a definition of the "a bachelor is an unmarried male" sort (which is true in every respect, by, er, definition). Rather, 'DB' is to 'evangelical' as 'photo of dog' is to 'dog', it's not the dog itself.
If you want a true-in-every-respect definition of evangelical theology, you can as I've said only appeal to the Bible in its entirety—that is, if you're approaching the question as an evangelical. A doctrinal basis will summarize key points; a fuller description will explain assumptions in greater depth and give indications as to how those assumptions are applied in various contexts. Genuine evangelicalism, as far as those who claim the name is concerned, is a work in progress this side of glory. No-one I think claims to get it 100% right; but the key points stated in a DB represent a good summary of a position that evangelicals would want to argue for as basic. 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.
But perhaps I have the question wrong?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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? 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?
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?"
But I'm away now for two weeks, so I'll be following further explanations from afar.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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?
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:
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?
This is tested in the context of discussion and debate, against the witness of Scripture. If I, as an evangelical, argue that you are not truly evangelical until your dog is able to quote John 3:16 in English and French, you are entitled to ask me where I find such a belief in Scripture. I in response then need defend my assertion from Scripture, or admit that I got my idea from elsewhere, ie, admit that on this question I am not thinking evangelically.
Anyone can play this game of course—Scripture is not a hole-in-the-corner document but one that anyone can read and discuss. Hopefully as we talk about it prayerfully we reach a conclusion, or agree to disagree. The process of discussion is important, it is informed by reason (the rules of logic) and tradition, is determined existentially in the short term, and ultimately the answer is known to us with certitude in heaven. As one of my theol lecturers said of his dead opponents, and sometimes of deceased friends "Ah well, he knows better now."
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!
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
