homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Are Pentecostals Evangelical? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Are Pentecostals Evangelical?
Jahdo
Shipmate
# 9835

 - Posted      Profile for Jahdo   Email Jahdo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Any chance that we could get back to discussing whether Pentecostals are Evangelical?

That seems like a good idea, if existing posts on the subject are taken into account.
Posts: 250 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007

 - Posted      Profile for Merchant Trader     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
just a thought but the Evangelical Alliance have a tightly defined Basis of Faith

quote:
We ask member churches and organisations to give their assent to the Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith. We also expect that they will have been established for at least two years and that they are in good standing with other local evangelical churches and/or organisations, abiding by the Evangelical Relationships Commitment.
They have a searchable database which reveals that 53 Pentecostal churchses in London alone are members. Other searches reveal a large number of charismatic churches. All of which must have accepted the Basis of Faith and have in turn been accepted as members

I may be shot down but in England I suspect that most Evangelical churches do belong to the EA. In which case it can be argued that most Evangelical Churches in England accept that Pentecostals or charismatics can be Evangelical (charismatic Catholics are a different topic).

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

--------------------
... 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
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:


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

Gordon Cheng, it would appear!

quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

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

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



Except that I don't think the people involved in the Azusa St. revival would disagree with you about 'tongues' meaning 'foreign human languages'. Right now I'm on holiday so don't have access to my books at home with testimonies of people at that time speaking in foreign languages unknown to them but known to some listening to them. However a quick search led me here, which contains for example the following:
quote:

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

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

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

Since, as well as pentecostals and charismatics, it's come back to excluding from evangelicalism anyone who subscribes to NT Wright's understanding of the atonement, would either Gordon or The Wanderer like to explain Wright's understanding of the atonement? Gordon, when you mentioned this the first time, you said it was not important. Since you've brought it up again, it would seem that it's more important than I thought. Could you explain what it is about NT Wright's understanding of the atonement that is not evangelical? Maybe that will help us all to understand your understanding of what it means to be evangelical.

Well, back to my holiday. Hopefully there will be some answers waiting for me when I get back.

--------------------
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
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not Gordon or the Wanderer, but here's a speech from +Wright earlier this year. Interestingly, he directly addresses the criticisms some evangelicals have of his view of the atonement.

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

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Sienna. Great talk. N T Wright is so clear. Here's an initial comment from him which seems pretty necessary in considering what makes an evangelical - or any other of the colours of the rainbow that is Christianity.

quote:
One answer is, I guess, that since I think my own reading of Paul represents a historically grounded and theologically accurate and sensitive understanding I naturally hope that other Christians of whatever tradition will find what I say fruitful, and I grieve that anyone should get into trouble in their own denomination, whatever that may be, for embracing a viewpoint which ought at the very least to be within anybody’s limits of orthodoxy.
If N T isn't both orthodox and evangelical on the atonement, I'll eat hay with the donkeys.

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If N T isn't both orthodox and evangelical on the atonement, I'll eat hay with the donkeys.

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

He sure is stentorian though. Gotta give him that.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief

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

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

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

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

--------------------
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
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064

 - Posted      Profile for The Expatriate Theolinguist   Email The Expatriate Theolinguist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
May I recommend a new thread? We're still waiting (with baited breath) for Gordo's Meisterwerk on The Definition Of 'Evangelical'.

--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.

Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.

Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[pedant hat on] That's "bated" I think you'll find, mr_ricarno, at least I'm hoping so. I may be conservative but I don't think I'm fishy [Biased] [/pedant hat off]

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon Cheng

Neither do I - but I think mr_ricarno is fishing!

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

--------------------
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
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I'm not Gordon or the Wanderer, but here's a speech from +Wright earlier this year. Interestingly, he directly addresses the criticisms some evangelicals have of his view of the atonement.

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

Thank you, Sienna. Very interesting reading. Though I must say that I can't find anything there which should exclude NT Wright from evangelicalism. Gordon, would you care to enlighten me?

--------------------
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      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't be around much at the moment because I'm in the middle of a complicated move. However, while I would be interested in what GC has to say about Wright, I am more interested in the principle behind this.

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

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having now read the Wright article, although not given it the detailed reflection it deserves, two sections jumped out at me in the light of this discussion. To begin with, he states as his first principle:
quote:
That formal principle is, of course, a total commitment to scripture itself, over against all human traditions, all structures created by human reason, all abstractions from the actual text. Of course, I read scripture within various traditions, I use reason in thinking about it, I make my own abstractions from the text as I go along. I am not a naive positivist, as some appear to think. But at every point one must come back to the text itself, the whole text, and in the last analysis nothing but the text.
Later on he expands on that by saying:
quote:
It is therefore bizarre to be told, in a recent book criticizing me on this and on several other counts, that my statements remain ‘vague’, just because I do not subscribe to a particular Reformed way of talking about imputed righteousness, about which we shall have more to say later, and just because I, like Paul himself in many passages, highlight the Christus Victor theme rather than penal substitution, even though when you ask how the powers of evil were defeated Paul’s answer is of course that God condemned them. Again, I invoke the Tyndale principle: I am determined to read exactly what is there in scripture, not to miss a thing on the one hand but not to insert things either into texts which do not state them.

(Emphases added.)

Now I am not a fan of Wright's, indeed on a personal level I rather dislike the man. But what he has stated seems to me to be the classic evangelical methodology: to be guided by scripture alone, not matter what human traditions you may trample on in the process.

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

--------------------
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      Profile for The Expatriate Theolinguist   Email The Expatriate Theolinguist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[pedant hat on] That's "bated" I think you'll find, mr_ricarno, at least I'm hoping so. I may be conservative but I don't think I'm fishy [Biased] [/pedant hat off]

Oops, sorry mate. *makes mental note of the spelling of 'bated' in this context'*

--------------------
Je suis une petite pomme de terre.

Formerly mr_ricarno, many moons ago.

Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007

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

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

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

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

--------------------
... 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      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many thanks for the kind words MT. I am still hoping that GC will return here one day as I would still like to know what his definition of a GCE is.

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

--------------------
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
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon said on the Oakhill Mafia thread that he was cutting himself short there in order to have time to compose his answer for this thread. I'll be interested, although it really makes no odds to me whether someone is a Evangelical™ or not, being myself a fluffy semi-universalist in the Liberal Bunny Warren. [Biased]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re Wright:

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

Which would put him approximately in the evangelical camp.


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

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

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

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read what I could find of +Wright's comments on the Atonement, and I, like others, can't see why it isn't considered evangelical. Can anyone offer some ideas?

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon Cheng

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

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon

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

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In response to some of the requests by The Wanderer and others I am going to try to restate what my definition of evangelicalism I and why I would take the view that Pentecostalism as represented by Hillsong is not evangelical. (I'll save any discussion of NT Wright for another thread, if you don't mind)

By way of caution:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Double post to add: I meant to say, "early evangelicals and liberals at Cambridge University"

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry, I swear I used prevwie spot on the last two posts. This paragraph should have had the word in bold included:

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

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Gordon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless

--------------------
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      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
GC, many thanks for finally getting back to us. I'm not around much at present as I have just moved house - there are boxes in every room and I haven't even found my pc yet, let alone got it connected. Your explanation of what a GCE is sounds pretty mainstream to me; I'd be interested to know if any of the other evangelicals on the Ship find it marginal. We differ as to where we would place Pentecostals because we have different understandings of that group; I see Pentecostalism as being Scripture-led, and you don't.

However, I would like your thoughts on some of the issues that have come up as this thread has developed. Taking your:
quote:
Definition: Ultimately evangelicalism may only be defined by appeal to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, which I understand, as an evangelical, to be God’s inerrant-in-what-it-claims-to-be-true word. There is not the smallest detail of Scripture that can be denied by an evangelical as true or authoritative, whilst continuing to claim to be evangelical.

as foundational in explaining evangelicalism, I would like to repeat my questions:
quote:
If someone prayerfully, honestly and intelligently studies the Bible can they arrive at a position which is not evangelical? Or, to put it another way, are all evangelicals led by the Bible? Or do some lead the Bible to the "right" conclusion, and who then has determined what is "right"?
If you have the time your thoughts on these issues would be much appreciated.
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Greetings TW,

I know that boxed in feeling too well.

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

Because we are limited, sinful creatures, the answer is yes. These limitations may to some extent be overcome, but perfect theology will have to wait until heaven, when all will be revealed.

quote:
Or, to put it another way, are all evangelicals led by the Bible?
That is one way of expressing how I am defining evangelicalism, therefore, yes.

quote:
Or do some lead the Bible to the "right" conclusion, and who then has determined what is "right"?
You work out the answer to the question of who is "right" in relationship. It is not up to the individual, but neither is it a corporate determination.

We can approach confidence as to what is "right"—the ecumenical creeds, the 39 Articles, the UCCF DB etc—but perfect clarity and correctness awaits heaven. Ultimately, true doctrine (as everything in creation) is a gracious gift of our heavenly Father.

B62, I 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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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

I'm OK with being labelled a fundamentalist, provided only that it's the original definition:

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

Nigel's just a name I happen to like.

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

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

Does my previous post address this to some extent?

Cheers

Gordon

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<big snip - responding to B62>
Does my previous post address this to some extent?

Cheers

Gordon

Yes it does. Thanks.

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

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Final try. I suppose you dont fancy regrouping around "euangelion" and proclamation as the core distinctives of evangelicals?

No, no, I like that very much indeed!

What is the "euangelion"? [Biased]

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon

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

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

--------------------
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
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What is the "euangelion"? [Biased]

It's what the "presbuters" in Sydney preach.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well here I am back from holiday, so thought I'd better find my way to this. Whilst on holiday I took the opportunity to go on a fact-finding mission and actually attended a Pentecostal church, but being neither in England nor Australia it wasn't a Hillsong one! Apart from any comments I could make about the style of worship, I must say that there was a very clear presentation of what Christ accomplished on the cross, leading into communion.

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

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

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


quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

I presume that in the above quote, the word 'expectations' is missing and there I couldn't agree with you more. I still think though that it remains to be proved that they obfuscate and marginalize the evangelical understanding of the cross.


quote:

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



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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:

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

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

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

Hi Gracie, welcome back.

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


quote:

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

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


quote:

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

Again, you test claims on a case by case basis. In the case of Hillsong, I argue that they don't submit their prosperity gospel to Scripture and that their claim to find such ideas within Scripture is repugnant.

quote:
So, Gordon, do you think that Hillsong is a fair representative of mainstream pentecostalism?
I don't think I can make a detailed comment. They are certainly one of the most publicized Pentecostal groups in Sydney, and Brian Houston is the current national President of the Assemblies of God in Australia. That suggests that they are representative of mainstream pentecostalism in Australia.

quote:
quote:

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

That seems a curious thing to say, after all the word Evangelical is not actually in the Bible.
No, but 'euangelion', from which we get our word 'evangel' and hence evangelical' is. 'Euangelion' is Greek for gospel. So to find out what an 'evangelical' is, if you're trying to define it theologically (as I am) rather than as a sociological grouping, you must fairly early on ask the question "what is the evangel". And evangelicals since Martin Luther have tagged themselves that way because they believe the answer is found in the Bible.

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

[Fixed hacked code]

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

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
.. and I set up a new thread (Proclaimers of good news) in Purg especially for this. And you never came. Its languishing on p2 ... [Waterworks]

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh- sorry about that B62, it must've slipped by. will check it out.

Sorry for hacked coding in previous post, hosts.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Gracie, welcome back.

Thank you

quote:

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

That's not the way I remember it, but anyway…

quote:

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

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

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

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

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


quote:

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

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

quote:
They are certainly one of the most publicized Pentecostal groups in Sydney, and Brian Houston is the current national President of the Assemblies of God in Australia. That suggests that they are representative of mainstream pentecostalism in Australia.
So you'd be prepared to admit that they're probably not very representative of pentecostalism world-wide?

quote:

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



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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
So are you saying here, that people who take Scripture seriously are bound to come to the same conclusions as you?

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

quote:
And that people who do not take Scripture seriously will have different ideas and so are not evangelical?
Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.

quote:
Do you really think that it's impossible to take Scripture seriously and not have the same ideas as yours?
No (see answer to your question two up from this one).

quote:
And even worse, that if we don't have the same ideas as you we are "just claiming to believe it"?
No, it's probably more likely that someone has got it wrong rather than that they are (or I am) lying.


quote:
As much as I find the whole "prosperity gospel" probably as repugnant as you do, I do think that they misguidedly believe it to be there in Scripture.
"Misguidedly" is right. I agree with you here, that the prosperity gospellers like Hillsong have misunderstood Scripture. Insofar as they are misrepresenting Scripture, they are not evangelical.

quote:
quote:
They are certainly one of the most publicized Pentecostal groups in Sydney, and Brian Houston is the current national President of the Assemblies of God in Australia. That suggests that they are representative of mainstream pentecostalism in Australia.
So you'd be prepared to admit that they're probably not very representative of pentecostalism world-wide?
All I said was that they seem to be representative of Australian Pentecostalism. On those grounds, it is likely they are representative of Pentecostals elsewhere too, but I don't know enough to make a definitive comment.

quote:

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

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.

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

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's to qualify, Euty? Evangelicals take scripture seriously. Non-evangelicals (some of them) take scripture seriously. But there is no such thing as an evangelical who doesn't take scripture seriously.

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Posted by Gordon Cheng:
Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.

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

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

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

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let me state it like this then Euty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------
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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not a philosopher, but an engineering programmer trained in mathematics and physics. Will I do, Gordo?

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

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

Send the cheque to the usual address...

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Remembering my Anthony Flew it is a valid argument. Whether it is based on true propositions may, of course, be questioned. [Biased]

[ 31. August 2005, 11:14: 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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understood
quote:
Anyone who doesn't take Scripture seriously can't be evangelical.
To mean

quote:
Anyone who does take Scripture seriously must be evangelical.
It seems I did indeed misinterpret the statement, and for this I apologize. I read an implication into the original statement which isn't a logical inevitability.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Euty, and I hope I didn't offend by the way I put it, but if I did, apologies.

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

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
So are you saying here, that people who take Scripture seriously are bound to come to the same conclusions as you?

No, since taking Scripture seriously doesn't mean getting it right. You work out whether you got it right by discussion and debate.
But getting it right definitely means agreeing with you, eh? And in what way do you work out if you've got it right by discussion and debate?

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

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

quote:

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

Two things here:


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


--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
But getting it right definitely means agreeing with you, eh?

No. How do you figure that? It means agreeing with the teaching of Scripture. But I don't claim that I am the bible, or that I get it right in every respect. It must, however (at least from an evangelical perspective) be possible to get it right.

quote:

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



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

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


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

You: Don't you think there's a difference between elsewhere and worldwide. I personally have no doubt at all that there are others like Hillsong elsewhere. That they might be typical of Pentecostals worldwide is another thing entirely. And I'm a lot more dubious about that.
And I don't believe I've ever made any unqualified claim in Purgatory (on this thread or elsewhere) about Pentecostalism. I am talking about Hillsong, you're the one who is trying to broaden it to a discussion of all Pentecostals, as you'll see back on page one of this thread.

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

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Two things here:


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

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

On the second question, yes, insofar as you teach stuff that isn't in the Bible, you're not being evangelical. So if the Bible teaches that black is black and white is white, and you come along and say that "I'm an evangelical, except that I believe that black is white", then the fitting response would be "Your'e an evangelical, except for your belief that black is white." So no, it's not just Pentecostals, it's anyone who gets it 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
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
[Getting it right] means agreeing with the teaching of Scripture. But I don't claim that I am the bible, or that I get it right in every respect. It must, however (at least from an evangelical perspective) be possible to get it right.

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

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


quote:

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



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

quote:

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

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


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

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

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


quote:

Originally posted by Gracie:
Two things here:


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

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

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

OK, I think I'm gradually understanding a little better where you're coming from. For you "evangelical" would be a synonym for "biblical"? Would that be right? If that is the case I can understand why you didn't understand my first question above, so I won't bother asking that one again. If I'm wrong in my conclusion here, let me know and I'll try again.


With respect to your answer to my first question above. For you "evangelical" would be a synonym for "biblical"? Would that be right? If that is the case I can understand why you didn't understand my first question above, so I won't bother asking that one again. If I'm wrong in my conclusion here, let me know and I'll try again.


With respect to your answer to my second question, you have suddenly inserted an important nuance between "are not evangelical" and "are not being evangelical.

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

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

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools