|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are Pentecostals Evangelical?
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is achieved, for evangelicals, only by a process of returning to Scripture constantly and checking questions and conclusions according to what is found there… My understanding of Pentecostal theology is that at least partly, it begins with experience and builds its theology from this basis. I don't mean that others don't; I mean that this is frequently explicit to their approach. There was a revival at Azusa St in 1907; it was accompanied by speaking in tongues—this experience is something all Christians would be blessed by.
The way I've heard it explained is that when the revival in Azusa St. happened along with the speaking in tongues, the guys involved who were evangelicals did exactly that – they returned to the Bible to find out what was happening to them. They built their doctrine from what they saw in the book of Acts. Now we may agree or disagree with the conclusions they came to, but they found the theology to explain their experience in the Bible.
Gordon, can I ask you again why it is so important to you to exclude pentecostals and charismatics?
I too am now going to be away for a couple of weeks. I may or may not have sporadic internet access, so if I don't answer straightaway it won't be because I'm ignoring you.
--------------------
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:
It's really saying that in evangelical understanding, only the Bible really gets to define what 'evangelical' is. Membership in a group that claims the name 'evangelical' doesn't cut it.
This still sounds as though you are claiming that only your type of evangelical takes the Bible seriously. All sorts of Christians base their theology on the Bible, and come to a whole range of different conclusions. As Gracie pointed out Pentecostals take their teaching about tongues straight out of the Bible - I happen to disagree with them, but they claim to be upholding Biblical teaching. Alternatively, I left evangelicalism and moved to liberalism because, to me, that seemed the consequence of taking the Bible seriously.
Earlier on you seemed to want to appropriate the cross to your bit of Christianity, now you seem to want to do the same with the Bible. In fact both the cross and the Bible are foundational in all types of Christianity - they can't be appropriated by one narrow group.
--------------------
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:
Gordon, can I ask you again why it is so important to you to exclude pentecostals and charismatics?
Exclude from what? Not the kingdom of God. Only God can do that, and for us to step into that role without warrant would be a blasphemy and presumption.
But I would exclude pentecostals and charismatics from a definition of evangelicalism for reasons of clarity—and with this, I would say that the issues we are trying to be clear about actually matter both for the glory of God and for our spiritual health.
And there are significant differences in approach. I maintain that Pentecostal methodology differs from an evangelical methodology, and that because of this Pentecostal conclusions differ from evangelical conclusions.
To take the example of speaking in tongues: they had an certain experience at Azusa St in 1907. They assumed that this was an experience of the Holy Spirit, and moved from that experience and the associated assumption to study Scripture. On this basis, they concluded that when the Bible speaks about 'tongues' it is certainly describing what happened at Azusa St in 1907, among other things. Armed with this understanding, they encouraged—and their spiritual descendants continue to encourage—other Christians to emulate this experience and so receive blessing.
An evangelical, by contrast, notes the experience described, and moves to the study of Scripture without either assuming or not assuming that the experience can be categorized as good, bad or ugly. At this stage, it's the job of a genuine evangelical to suspend judgement. An evangelical concludes (or at least, they have historically concluded) that there is not sufficient information in the biblical text to be certain that the Azusa St experience of speaking in 'tongues' really was an experience of the Holy Spirit.
If you want to know, I think on grounds of context that when the Bible mentions 'tongues' it generally means 'foreign human languages'. But I don't mind arguing the toss on the basis of a study of Scripture, and when we do that, we are approaching the Scriptures in an evangelical way.
This move from Scripture to the interpretation of experience is a move in the opposite direction to the move made by the type of Pentecostalism we are talking about in the case of Azusa St..
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
GC: quote:
It's really saying that in evangelical understanding, only the Bible really gets to define what 'evangelical' is. Membership in a group that claims the name 'evangelical' doesn't cut it.
This still sounds as though you are claiming that only your type of evangelical takes the Bible seriously..
No; most Christians, not just evangelicals, take the Bible seriously. But alongside that, the majority of Christians would explicitly claim to be placing some other authority on at least equal footing—pick one or more of reason, tradition, or experience. The evangelical claim is not to ignore those other authorities but to place them in their proper context below Scripture.
quote:
All sorts of Christians base their theology on the Bible, and come to a whole range of different conclusions
This would be why no-one, least of all evangelicals, should have their claim to have correctly read the Bible taken at face value. You’re not just evangelical because you say you are, any more than the man on the psychiatrist’s couch is a cow because he says moo. All such claims ought to be tested against the evidence of the text and other such tests as are available to us, each weighted according to their value. Is the claim internally coherent, in the sense of logically and factually consistent? Does the claim make sense of the textual, linguistic and grammatical evidence that is before us? Has anyone else in the whole of church history been persuaded by the claim? Who? Why? Does the claim make sense of not only my experience but the experience of others? How important is the claim for our understanding of the nature of God, man, and salvation?
Not all of these questions are of equal value but they are all worth asking, along with others.
quote:
Earlier on you seemed to want to appropriate the cross to your bit of Christianity, now you seem to want to do the same with the Bible.
If by this you mean that I think I’m right, that’s true. But you wouldn’t argue for a view unless you thought that, would 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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
In the days when I moved in such circles here is how the Azusa Street revival was consistently presented. A group of Christians were studying Acts, and were struck by the powerlessness of the contemporary Church compared with what they saw in Acts. They then went on searching the Scriptures to see what it was that was lacking in the modern Church to account for this lack of power. In the Bible they found accounts of people "speaking in tongues", and could not see this happening anywhere around them. So they prayed to God to give them this blessing, as part of their praying for a renewed Church that would see again thousands of people being converted to Christianity on a single occassion - and then things started to happen. Now you can argue with them about their exegesis (as I do these days) but their methodology seems classically evangelical. Put scripture first. If our experience fails to reflect scripture, ask God to change our experience.
Gordon, yes I assume you believe you are right. I assume most posters on the Ship believe this when they write (the exceptions being folk who are just having a bit of a laugh). What I find perplexing about you is that you seem to want to redefine language in order to remain right. Given that the typed word is all we have to go on in this medium this tendency makes discussion with you difficult. As others have noted, over the course of this discussion you have significantly changed your stated opinion on Hillsong, and pentecostals generally. However you perist in denying them the title "evangelical" based on your-personal-opinion-which-you-won't-fully-explain but-which-is-the-only-historical-correct-definition. And in your wriggling you have (let us hope inadvertently) tried to take the cross and the Bible away from vast sections of your fellow Christians.
These days I am a liberal, in so far as labels are useful, and that is a badge I wear with as much pride as I used to wear the label evangelical. In my heart of hearts I beleive that in order for me to take the Bible seriously, and for me to attempt to follow the life and teaching of Christ in a world that needs him, I have to be a liberal. (And as part of that I long ago decided that to ask anyone to sign up to a confession of faith narrower than the Creeds was to take a step away from main stream Christianity and a step towards cults and sects.) However I recognise that there are other liberals out there who come to conclusions different from mine, who are frankly an embarassment and who undermine things that I hold dear. I could redefine language and invent some other term for them, but that would simply cause confusion. So I have to shrug my shoulders and say: "I think they're nutters, but I have something in common with them".
For some time now the Ship has used, with affection, the abbreviation GLE for "Good Little Evangelical" as a way of describing some aspects of the evangelical sub-culture. Would it help if I now introduced the term GCE for "Gordon Cheng Evangelical"? That way we could all be clear whether we are talking about "evangelicalism as understood by you" as opposed to "evangelicalism as understood by the rest of the Church"?
[Fixed scroll lock - C.]
[ 01. August 2005, 12:28: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
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
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Sorry for jumping in midstream but one little bit caught my attention:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Only God can do that, and for us to step into that role without warrant would be a blasphemy and presumption.
Is there ever a circumstance when any of us would have such a 'warrant'?
God forbid he'd ever give one to me! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Isn't this thread proof that denominations (and labels in general when attached to people) are the invention of Satan?
It doesn't matter whether you call Pentecostals evangelical or not - the real issue (for everyone)is: are they going God's way?
Now, if someone can give me a good reason for attaching labels to different Christians (besides "knowing what to expect if you go to that church on a Sunday") do let me know, but as far as I can tell, labels lead simply to assumptions being made that may be wrong, misunderstandings, confusion and general disillusionment.
I liked it when it was just Christians ("followers of The Way") and other people.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Part of the problem here seems to be a lack of agreement whether labels describe mutually exclusive boxes or over-lapping boxes. I personally visualise a Venn diagram with over-lapping shapes or circles. To cater for all the labels and all the over-laps you might need a multi-dimensional diagram!
I have certainly known charismatic evangelicals, charismatic catholics (Roman or other wise), low catholics, high catholics, evangelicals who appreciate high worship (e.g. those who attend local evangelical church but go to occasional coral services at a Cathedral or College) etc etc,
I don’t understand why anyone would want to deny anyone else a descriptive label. If there is confusion then the label can be qualified by another one.
If someone described them self as a low church evangelical Pentecostal, I think I would get a good idea of what to expect. Equally a charismatic high church catholic gives a pretty good idea too. As does a conservative evangelical church, a liberal low catholic church or a conservative high (anglo-) catholic church.
You cannot pigeonhole a church with a single word label that only describes a few aspects of church belief or practice
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Agreed Angelfish and Merchant Trader. Labels can never describe the totality of a person; but they can be useful shorthand to give a rough idea of some area of that person's life. I reckon this applies to any kind of label - political, writing styles, music etc. Take them as a full description and they will only confuse, take them as a commonly agreed abbreviation and they can be useful.
This is where my confusion arises with GC. He seems to want to redfine a widely accepted term, but is being rather coy about his reasons for doing so.
--------------------
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
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I think GC is worried that if the label "evangelical" is allowed to attach to anyone that does not exactly fit his own views (as he regards himself as evangelical) then people will start to think he holds the views of the others who have been given the same label. Maybe GC needs to re-name himself a "cruci-centric evangelical" or something of that sort, so that his particular emphasis is apparent.
Gordon, do excuse me if I am wrong - very presumptious of me to assume I know where you are coming from.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I liked it when it was just Christians ("followers of The Way") and other people.
I don't disagree with your general point about denominations, though I've always wondered how it would be possible to avoid them given the variety of human being. But I'm interested to know when it 'was just Christians and other people.' Even in Paul's time he observed that 'each of you says 'I belong to Paul', or 'I belong to Apollos' or 'I belong to Cephas''? Right or wrong group loyalties have existed right from the off. So far as I can see, there was never a time in Christian history which lacked division, or where unity was perfect. Which isn't to say that they oughtn't to be disapproved of, of course!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Well, Anselmina you are of course right that it is clear that very early on the church started to divide itself into disciples of various preachers, which is like the early seeds of denominations and I was waiting for that point to be made. However, the difference between then and now is that they all got told off for it by Paul who makes it clear that such divisions are bad and he tells them instead to focus on what unites them - which is Jesus.
These days, you just don't hear anyone saying that denominations are bad (well, you do hear some people say that some particular denominations are bad, but you know what I mean).
I remember at university I invited a fresher, who I had discovered was a Christian, along to a Christian Union meeting and she said "No thanks, I'm a Methodist". Still makes me chortle to this day.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
GC is there any chance of you posting here again? There have been quite a few points raised, and it would be good to get your response to them.
--------------------
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
TW, don't worry, "I'll be back", just have to go and get brekky for the fam, and things are a bit busy at the mo. Reading with interest, however.
just quickly
quote:
Originally posted by Charis:
Sorry for jumping in midstream but one little bit caught my attention:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Only God can do that, and for us to step into that role without warrant would be a blasphemy and presumption.
Is there ever a circumstance when any of us would have such a 'warrant'?
God forbid he'd ever give one to me!
If we worked out from the Bible that Judas was in hell, we would have warrant to say that 'Judas is in Hell'.
Don't worry, I'm not about to TICTH anybody on these august boards ![[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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Brekky over? Fam fed? Any chance of an answ this arvo?
--------------------
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:
Brekky over? Fam fed? Any chance of an answ this arvo?
Pushy, pushy, TW! Not only brekky but vacuuming, editing an article, getting a title for a series of studies, spending a bit of family time, reviewing some articles, trying to prepare a sermon on Romans 1:1-17 for Sunday and editing a book on the Da Vinci code! Darn boss keeps giving me work.
I am only currently doing posts that take less than 5 minutes to zap off into the ether, but whether it's a day or a week, I will get back to you. In the meantime, if you want to see a discussion board (to which I contribute) where a number of posters think similarly about the Houstons, this thread on Sydney Anglicans may be of interest, although beware—you're supposed to post under your own name over there.
There would be a few people in different places who would share the understanding of 'evangelical' I've been putting forward here, including as I think I mentioned one of the framers of the orignal UCCF doctrinal basis. In the UK context, think Oak Hill Theological College or Reform. More conservative than Alister McGrath or NT Wright, if those reference points make any sense. I'm not saying it's a majority or even a large minority, just that there are more than just me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Gordon appears to define Evangelicalism by its cross-centeredness if I have understood him correctly. Personally I don’t think that cross-centeredness alone is sufficient to classify theology as being Evangelical. I would add, at the very least, the resurrection, the ascension, and Jesus as the only mediator between God and man.
These are superfluous distractions in this context. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man because of the cross; the resurrection and ascension show that the cross has any meaning at all.
quote:
Anyway, my question is : Is it true to say that Pentecostals do not preach the cross. I have always thought that Pentecostals do preach the cross, even if they preach some other things as well that other Evangelicals don’t.
The cross means repentance, not just once, but every time one is convicted of sin. It means working out one's faith in fear and trembling, as well as with rejoicing, and there are far more religionists who eschew trembling than do not. Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such. Waving arms around and gabbling in a 'spiritual' manner not only avoids the real application of the cross, it gives an impression of spirituality, and often feeds the pride of the 'performer' (and performance it is).
quote:
An element of this is a phrase I have heard, by which they say that “healing is in the atonement”, based on Isaiah 53:5 – “with his stripes we are healed”. I don’t understand how they could preach that without preaching the cross.
All sorts of people preach that- Mormons, JWs, Catholics, liberals- but are never healed, and often have no intention of being healed.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahdo:
Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such. Waving arms around and gabbling in a 'spiritual' manner not only avoids the real application of the cross, it gives an impression of spirituality, and often feeds the pride of the 'performer' (and performance it is).
I suppose you've been to a Pentecostal church, had dialogue with pentecostals etc. and are thus speaking from a position of non-total-ignorance?
I'd advise you to think very carefully before making sweeping, judgmental statements like this.
--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.
Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.
Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
So Jahdo, on the basis of one verse you have constructed an understanding of Christianity that enables you to be dismissive of thousands of other believers? Impressive.
GC, while I recognise that you are very busy and have many demands on your valuable time, I would like to hear your definition of what an evangelical is. Telling me that there are lots of other people who would class themselves as GCEs doesn't help me understand what you mean by the phrase, I'm afraid.
[ 04. August 2005, 09:08: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jahdo:
[qb] Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such. Waving arms around and gabbling in a 'spiritual' manner not only avoids the real application of the cross, it gives an impression of spirituality, and often feeds the pride of the 'performer' (and performance it is).
quote:
I suppose you've been to a Pentecostal church, had dialogue with pentecostals etc. and are thus speaking from a position of non-total-ignorance?
That is correct.
quote:
I'd advise you to think very carefully before making sweeping, judgmental statements like this.
Is that solicitude on my account, or yours? It is generally advisable to use the words 'I', 'you', and 'your' sparingly in debates.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QB] [QUOTE]So Jahdo, on the basis of one verse you have constructed an understanding of Christianity that enables you to be dismissive of thousands of other believers?
I dare say that Pentecostalists would very much like that idea to be thought to be true, but I think that even they would not attempt to defend it explicitly.
The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course. I have not yet started to murder Pentecostalists. Perhaps it would impress if I did.
[ 04. August 2005, 12:44: Message edited by: Jahdo ]
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
For Jahdo
Welcome to SofF. IMO mr_ricarno's advice was well-intentioned, not a put down. I echo it.
Let me give you one example of the sort of problems you will face if you keep on posting sweeping assertions such as
quote:
The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course.
I suggest you look at this link to Denzinger's comments on papal infallibility. Particularly the biblical section. And don't assume I'm a Catholic or agree with Denzinger.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For Jahdo
quote:
Welcome to SofF.
Thank you.
quote:
IMO mr_ricarno's advice was well-intentioned, not a put down.
What reason do I have to believe you?
quote:
Let me give you one example of the sort of problems you will face if you keep on posting sweeping assertions such as
[QUOTE]The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course.
I suggest you look at this link to Denzinger's comments on papal infallibility. Particularly the biblical section. And don't assume I'm a Catholic or agree with Denzinger. [/qb]
What problems do I face with making this 'sweeping assertion'? I can't see anything at that site other than the same old Catholic circularity one is all too familiar with. It seems to me that the problems are those of others in refuting these alleged sweeping assertions. The allegation that I adopted a stance to 'pentecostalists' based on one verse is, imv, a very unworthy falsehood, to put it mildly. But even if it is true, there is famous (or infamous)precedent. Double standards apply, I think.
[ 04. August 2005, 13:56: Message edited by: Jahdo ]
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Jahdo, my criticism of you went like this. You made a reference to one verse (Phillipians 2.12 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."), said that Pentecostals were ignoring this, and implied that they were inspired by Satan: quote:
Satan has devised many methods of being 'Christian' without fear and trembling. So-called pentecostalism is one such.
This seems to me a sweeping and unwarranted condemnation. The Bible also has a lot to say about the Christian's duty to praise God at all times; indeed it could be argued that this is a much bigger theme than "fear and trembling". If you really want to claim (which I'm sure you don't) that Pentecostalism is non-Christian, or even Satanic, you would need a lot more evidence than just Phil 2.12.
(What is it at the moment? First I have to defend Pentecostalism against GC and now against Jahdo. It's not even as though I am a Pentecostal - just a happy Bible believing liberal )
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(Purgatory hosts; may I please have a little latitude for this tangent?)
I dont see how you have justified your original assertion. Do you still maintain that the whole Catholic church is based on one verse of scripture? Particularly given Denzinger's not at all unreasonable proposition that the uniqueness of the Petrine role is based, biblically, on three separate scriptures, each of which comes from an independent scriptural source (i.e different authorships for the Matthew, Luke and John scriptures)? Where is his argument circular - and how have the other two scriptures he quoted been dismissed as circularity?
It isn't "obvious" to me that Catholicity is just based biblically on Matthew 16 v 18-19. And, by the way, that is 2 verses anyway. So as I read your posts, you have overstated your case in your assertion - and have resorted to rhetoric in your reply, without addressing the key weakness in your statement, that the Roman church is based on a single verse of scripture. So, which single verse are you referring to, and why are the Luke and John verses either not significant, or their interpretation circular?
A plain reading of all three suggests strongly that Peter is being given a special leadership role by Jesus. I presume you believe in plain reading of scripture as the best means of interpretation?
By the way, I am a nonconformist protestant with a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture and I do not believe in the infallibility of popes.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
And why do you want to bring murder into the picture? quote:
I have not yet started to murder Pentecostalists. Perhaps it would impress if I did.
You do it on the Apostolic Succession thread as well so you must be thinking of something, but I've no idea what.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QB] Jahdo, my criticism of you went like this. [QUOTE] You made a reference to one verse
And it was alleged that that verse was the only justification for my stance. That is a falsehood, and I am not going to debate with people who talk like that.
When you write a post that does not contain the word 'you', Wanderer, I may consider it fit for debate.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Jahdo if you are really cross with me you might want to wander over to the Hell thread where I am being cruelly mauled at this very moment.
I tackled you on that one verse because that is the only justification you have offered so far for your views. If you have more, please present them. That's what these boards are for.
And I'm sorry if my using the word "you" offends you (sorry, done it again) but how else can I refer to you when discussing a point?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahdo:
it was alleged that that verse was the only justification for my stance. That is a falsehood, and I am not going to debate with people who talk like that.
Well, I certainly read your comment as though that was the main, if not the only, justification for your stance. May I remind you of what you said?
quote:
The whole massive structure of the Roman Church is built upon one verse, of course.
Now, of course, you never actually said what verse, and so the rest of us were left to try and guess which one you meant.
quote:
When you write a post that does not contain the word 'you', Wanderer, I may consider it fit for debate.
Can I just ask why the presence, or otherwise, of the word "you" makes any difference to the worthiness of the point in terms of discussion?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] (Purgatory hosts; may I please have a little latitude for this tangent?)
[QUOTE] I dont see how you have justified your original assertion. Do you still maintain that the whole Catholic church is based on one verse of scripture? Particularly given Denzinger's not at all unreasonable proposition that the uniqueness of the Petrine role is based, biblically, on three separate scriptures, each of which comes from an independent scriptural source (i.e different authorships for the Matthew, Luke and John scriptures)?
I did not see that; if people give websites as reference they must not expect people to hunt around. But it makes no difference: I am well aware of RC arguments. All other Roman suppositions about Peter's status hinge on Matthew (or rather, a strange and blasphemous interpretation of Matthew), without which there would be nothing concrete at all to hang their idea onto.
The real point is that it is totally out of order, imv, to discount clear apostolic command just because it has only one instance in Scripture. As it happens, the necessity for 'fear and trembling' is implicit throughout Scripture. I am somewhat astonished that I even have to reply to the notion that it is not.
[ 04. August 2005, 15:51: Message edited by: Jahdo ]
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QUOTE] I tackled you on that one verse because that is the only justification you have offered so far for your views. If you have more, please present them.
When you have duly apologised for your falsehood, I might well do just that.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Hi Jahdo.
One of the things that some of us enjoy and value about this ship is that is such a diverse range of views and opinions on it. The vast majority of these views and opinions have supporters on the ship who are able to argue for it intelligently and coherently.
Very few things are uniformly regarded as being "obviously" true here and, most of the time, someone will disagree with you/me/whoever. Otherwise, how could there be any debate?
I expect there will even be people who disagree with what I have said here!
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Errrr - what falsehood do you want me to apologise for? (Sorry: for what falsehood should I apologise?)
--------------------
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
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
Hi Jahdo.
Hi Papio.
quote:
One of the things that some of us enjoy and value about this ship is that is such a diverse range of views and opinions on it.
Diversity seems to be met with personal attacks here.
quote:
The vast majority of these views and opinions have supporters on the ship who are able to argue for it intelligently and coherently.
What are we to surmise from that remark? That I have not argued intelligently and coherently? Have you anything to say on the subject of 'pentecostalism'? Or is this thread to be devoted to Jahdo, personal attacks thereon?
[fixed code]
[ 04. August 2005, 16:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Host hat on
Jahdo, you've already been told on another thread in Purgatory, "Either participate in the debate or don't. But kindly desist from your current unhelpful attitude." The hosts read every post and will smite anyone posting personal attacks in Purgatory. When we haven't done so, you may assume that what has been posted is allowable on this board. No one has indulged in personal attack against you; what you've seen are simply robust attacks upon your statements and the positions you're taking. If you are not prepared to defend them, don't post them.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Jahdo - I have made no personal attack on you, as RuthW said. I was merely giving you some friendly advice, as you stated that you were "somewhat astonished" that you had been asked to defend certain aspects of your viewpoint. Please note that I included myself in my original post to this thread, so that it was not just aimed at you or soley about you. That is all.
As to your impolite implications concerning where, when, if and why I should post, I am afraid that I can make no friendly or jovial reply to them. So I will leave it at that.
Papio (who hopes he has not trod on RuthW's toes).
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Yes Papio, I thought you were just being friendly. But then I'm mired in falsehood, so you shouldn't listen to a word I say.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
Papio (who hopes he has not trod on RuthW's toes).
No worries, Papio. I am happy to report that my toes remain unscathed!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahdo:
<snip>
I did not see that; if people give websites as reference they must not expect people to hunt around. But it makes no difference: I am well aware of RC arguments. All other Roman suppositions about Peter's status hinge on Matthew (or rather, a strange and blasphemous interpretation of Matthew), without which there would be nothing concrete at all to hang their idea onto.
<snip>
My post pointed you to the biblical content of that part of the site. It is very easy to find.
It is not clear that you are aware of RC arguments but you are clearly aware of arguments against RC arguments. Believe me, it will not hurt you to look carefully at the Denzinger arguments. You will see that they are not based on one verse of scripture, nor are they circular. No one, least of all me, is asking you to accept the arguments, simply to recognise that their basis is not in fact what you said it was.
mr_ricarno's very mild advice must seem a long time ago. I am sorry you have got off to such a combative start. No one here is out to get you.
[ 04. August 2005, 17:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jahdo:
<snip>
[qb] I did not see that; if people give websites as reference they must not expect people to hunt around. But it makes no difference: I am well aware of RC arguments. All other Roman suppositions about Peter's status hinge on Matthew (or rather, a strange and blasphemous interpretation of Matthew), without which there would be nothing concrete at all to hang their idea onto.
<snip>
quote:
My post pointed you to the biblical content of that part of the site. It is very easy to find.
I should not even have to look.
quote:
It is not clear that you are aware of RC arguments
Or that I am not.
quote:
but you are clearly aware of arguments against RC arguments.
Is it?
quote:
Believe me, it will not hurt you to look carefully at the Denzinger arguments.
Would you reproduce them here, then?
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jahdo
The site has good rules about reproducing large quotations from authors which is why we provide links to websites instead. (You should see them in colour in the text.)
If you click on this link (which I also provided in my earlier post) it will take you to the website and all you need to do is follow Denzinger's argument. As I have said, you do not need to accept the argument, simply recognise that it does make use of more than the one verse of scripture to which you referred in your original assertion.
It is also clear from Acts (particularly Acts 2) and Galatians that Peter did indeed have a special and significant leadership role in the early church.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
The site has good rules about reproducing large quotations from authors which is why we provide links to websites instead. (You should see them in colour in the text.)
I have had a look. One can distil (or copy and paste) the salient arguments into a few lines, e.g.:
This special prayer of Christ was for Peter alone in his capacity as head of the Church, as is clear from the text and context quote:
Can you explain how the text and context make clear Peter's primacy, and his succession?
Of the triple command, we read:
[QUOTE] there is no denying that the Petrine and papal claims are more clearly supported by the Gospels
But there is denying it. All we have here is a multiplicity of meaningless words, without substance. They amount to Catholic circularity.
quote:
It is also clear from Acts (particularly Acts 2) and Galatians that Peter did indeed have a special and significant leadership role in the early church.
No-one doubts that Peter had a leading role in the first few months of the life of the church. What has not been shown is that Peter's role was any more than a personal one, due to personal qualities.
But Acts 2 shows Peter's role as 'Hon Sec', giving the vote to the floor, without even a chairman's casting vote. Galatians lumps Peter in with two others who 'appeared to be pillars'. Paul was almost contemptuous. Scripture totally destroys Petrine primacy.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Host hat on
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(Purgatory hosts; may I please have a little latitude for this tangent?)
It's been fine up to this point, but as there is already a thread in Purgatory on Petrine primacy, I'll ask everyone interested in the topic to continue the discussion there. Many thanks.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks Ruth.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jahdo
Suggest you review the Petrine primacy thread and see if you want to participate/continue discussion there. I've noted your comments and will send you a PM.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jahdo
Suggest you review the Petrine primacy thread and see if you want to participate/continue discussion there. I've noted your comments and will send you a PM.
Thanks for your suggestion. I have already perused that thread and decided not to partake, for the moment at least. I look forward to your PM.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Any chance that we could get back to discussing whether Pentecostals are Evangelical?
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
On the Hell thread, I asked: quote:
However, another point that struck me last night. As well as excluding Pentecostalism, GC wants to exclude NT Wright's understanding of the atonement. Leaving aside the details of that position, let us assume that Wright has arrived at this position by careful study of the Scriptures and that he believes his understanding to be that closest to the thinking of Paul. In which case, how can someone who lets the Bible determine their thinking not be an evangelical? Is it possible that a GCE is not actually led by the Bible, but has an agenda that they want the Bible to follow?
It is relevant here because my understanding of Pentecostals is that they are following what they see in the Bible, and seeking to have their experience match what is recorded in Scripture. That sounds deeply evangelical to me. Or are you only evangelical if you find the "right" answers in the Bible - and who decides what is "right"?
[ 05. August 2005, 08:56: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The Wanderer.
I like your new signature BTW - and agree with it.
I think the problem is that evangelicalism is a much wider spectrum than some evangelicals give credit. There are liberals and conservatives, charismatics and noncharismatics, nonconformists and episcopalians. I think there are also catholic and protestant evangelicals.
The root for many of us is that we have had a personal experience of conversion. When Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me", he was bearing the sin of the world, including mine. I believe he died for me. So, looking back, I recognise there was a time when I was not a Christian, a time of crisis and decision, a time of acceptance, and then my journey began. 30 years ago, at the start of my journey, I took on board, initially, much more conservative views about what it meant to be Christian - many of them rather like the views GC expresses. I've journeyed a long way in my own understanding since then. But my own "labelling" of myself as an evangelical is as much a recognition of where I came from as it is of where I am now. And the nature of the church I attend (which has changed as much in the last 30 years as I have, but still is recognisably evangelical - at least in my terms!)
Perhaps it is worth adding that I know many Christians whose faith did not come out of a single personal decision, conversion at a point in time if you like, rather a growing awareness and acceptance. I guess in the end it depends on how you experience grace operating through faith. What matters most of all is to see it as a gift from God (Eph 2 v 8-9).
I'm sorry if this is all a bit unstructured!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
I think the problem is that evangelicalism is a much wider spectrum than some evangelicals give credit. There are liberals and conservatives, charismatics and noncharismatics, nonconformists and episcopalians. I think there are also catholic and protestant evangelicals.
Agreed - and I believe the term is still useful shorthand even though spread widely. Which is why I become fretful when I see attempts made to say, "Only X is truly evangelical, no other brand deserves the title," (especially when X is an unknown). Making terms more restrictive than they need to be is not a good thing, in my experience, and changing the meaning of words makes discussion almost impossible.
[ 05. August 2005, 10:22: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
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
|
|
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahdo:
quote:
IMO mr_ricarno's advice was well-intentioned, not a put down.
What reason do I have to believe you?
Cripes, sorry folks I went away from the computer for a day and look what's happened.
Jahdo, my comment was not at all intended as a put-down, but was rather a friendly piece of advice from someone who's been on the ship for a year and has made a lot of etiquette bloopers in his time. Apologies if it was misconstrued in any way - I'd never post anything insulting or abusive, at least not in Purgatory .
--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.
Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.
Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
