|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are Pentecostals Evangelical?
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Woodie: Am I right in thinking that the reasoning is going like this?
1. Pentecostals believe in Prosperity teaching.
2. Prosperity teaching is wrong and unBiblical (as any fule kno).
3. Ergo, Pentecostals can't be Evangelicals.
Gracie: That certainly sums up Gordon's reasoning as I'm understanding it.
quote:
Woodie: Anybody spot the leap between point 2 and point 3?
Gracie: And that's the problem with what he's saying that I've been trying to point out for some time now. I must admit I have been sorely tempted to bang my head against a brick wall.
Don't do it!
It's a good summary of my position. The bridge between the points is provided by treating "biblical" and "evangelical" as interchangeable.
The only qualification here is that evangelicalism shape-shifts on inessentials. This is confusing, because sometimes what is inessential changes. But, as they say, "society's to blame." Society, including Christian society, is faddish about what really matters, and evangelicals respond to that faddishness by updating what they believe. No-one in the West would've given prosperity gospel the time of day in 1945. So evangelicals didn't bother defining themselves against it, as it would be like a bird defining itself in distinction to a microbe—no point, obvious, trivial to get worked up about, so why bother. Nowadays, in these post-modern times, the story is different.
Not for too much longer, possibly. The next thing to define ourselves against may prove to be Shi'ite Islam.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Gordon can you please tell me in what way my definition of Pentecostalism is fuzzy and vague? It seems pretty precise to me, and no pentecostals have got in touch with me to tell me I'm wrong or being fuzzy about what they believe.
Actually, if this is true, then haven't we dealt with the matters you raised in your OP to everyone's satisfaction?
To the question of "Are Pentecostals Evangelical?", my answer (on the basis of your definition) is a resounding "maybe".
Which I think means that we've reached resolution. Doesn't it?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
You wish.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
What has become clear is that you are only a true evangelical if your study of the Bible has led you to the same conclusions as GC. If you have reached different conclusions (say on the spiritual gifts, the atonement or prosperity) then you are not really an evangelical. Hence the coining of the phrase Gordon-Cheng-Evangelical, or GCE, or distinguish this variety of evangelical from the more widespread variety.
However, the claim that "evangelical" is interchangeable with "biblical" is drawing me back into this thread against my better judgement (DNFtT). My experience was that I left evangelicalism because I found that liberal scholarship took the text more seriously. There is a tendency in some evangelical scholarship to try to make the entire Bible say the same thing at all times, without contradiction. This can lead to serious distortions of some parts of Scripture, in the cause of over all simplicity.
Or take the issue of authorship. There is strong internal evidence to suggest that the book of Daniel was not written during the Babylonian captivity, and that Paul did not write the Epistles to Timothy. Yet most evangelical commentaries I have read have not addressed this textual evidence seriously. Instead the line is: "These must have an early date because I have already decided that that is the only correct conclusion." It seems to me that the basic presuppotions of many evangelicals lead them to do violence to the Scripture they claim to uphold.
(ETA: This is purely my own perception, and in no way contradicts the very high opinion I hold of many evangelicals.)
[ 10. September 2005, 13:35: 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 Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
You wish.
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
What has become clear is that you are only a true evangelical if your study of the Bible has led you to the same conclusions as GC. .....(etc., etc., etc)
Like you said Wood ......
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However, the claim that "evangelical" is interchangeable with "biblical" is drawing me back into this thread against my better judgement (DNFtT). My experience was that I left evangelicalism because I found that liberal scholarship took the text more seriously. There is a tendency in some evangelical scholarship to try to make the entire Bible say the same thing at all times, without contradiction. This can lead to serious distortions of some parts of Scripture, in the cause of over all simplicity.
Or take the issue of authorship. There is strong internal evidence to suggest that the book of Daniel was not written during the Babylonian captivity, and that Paul did not write the Epistles to Timothy. Yet most evangelical commentaries I have read have not addressed this textual evidence seriously. Instead the line is: "These must have an early date because I have already decided that that is the only correct conclusion." It seems to me that the basic presuppotions of many evangelicals lead them to do violence to the Scripture they claim to uphold.
(ETA: This is purely my own perception, and in no way contradicts the very high opinion I hold of many evangelicals.)
Wanderer.
Well put! Your critique of typical evangelical approaches to the Bible is not "purely [your] own perception". I share it, and I am sure you speak for many other ex-evangelicals.
My own experience as a "liberal" biblical scholar fits very well with what you say here. In my experience, it is often (though, not always, certainly) the case that my "evangelical" students have the greatest trouble actually engaging with the Bible and talking about what it actually says, as opposed to what they think it ought to say. I once lost my temper with a class in which several students constantly looked to the notes in their NIV Study Bible for answers to whatever exegetical question I was asking. I'm sure it went right over their heads when I observed that, "The Reformation was a waste of time if you're simply going to make the NIV Study Bible your Magisterium!"
Thomas
[Who much prefers the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd edition, as a Magisterium! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas
My own experience as a "liberal" biblical scholar fits very well with what you say here. In my experience, it is often (though, not always, certainly) the case that my "evangelical" students have the greatest trouble actually engaging with the Bible and talking about what it actually says, as opposed to what they think it ought to say. I once lost my temper with a class in which several students constantly looked to the notes in their NIV Study Bible for answers to whatever exegetical question I was asking. I'm sure it went right over their heads when I observed that, "The Reformation was a waste of time if you're simply going to make the NIV Study Bible your Magisterium!"
Thomas
[Who much prefers the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd edition, as a Magisterium! ]
Yes. Although I use the categories of "liberal" and "evangelical" myself as a useful shorthand, they create some fairly substantial tension for liberal evangelicals like me!
I'm not sure its valid for this thread but the interesting question that arises from your post and The Wanderer's is this one.
"Are evangelicals good bible scholars?"
I supect the answer is to be found in the extext to which we can be open to both reverence and "critical-realist" views of the text. For example, on the Pastorals which you mention, the evidence that large chunks of them were not fashioned by the same hand and brain that fashioned Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians is pretty impressive. And that is mixed up with the fact that there are portions here and there which feel very Pauline. So there is quite a lot going for the argument that the Pastorals are edited composites. Some evangelicals I know are very comfortable with this sort of analysis, others feel instinctively that it is in some way either not taking the authority and inspiration of scripture seriously, or somehow "letting the side down". Letting the side down in this context means departing from the traditional sorts of statements of faith in use in evangelical churches and family groupings. My own personal perspective is that by taking the content seriously, applying my mind and heart to it while retaining respect and reverence for the Book, is a real way to honour the authority and inspiration of scripture. It feels very much in line with the protestant nonconformist roots of evangelicalism - or at least the 19th century variety!
These arguments soon degenerate into the Biblical Inerrancy thread - a Dead Horse. Personally, I wish we could look at some of this stuff in a less pre-judged way, but its sometimes hard to get an open-minded discussion going. If either of you guys can come up with a good thread on the point, which isn't a thinly disguised Dead Horse, I'll happily join you. Here or in Kerygmania.
--------------------
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
A thread entitled "Are evangelicals good Bible scholars?" would be fascinating, but possibly more conducive of heat than light.
My problem is that I still value my evangelical roots and all that they gave me. I have many evangelical friends, both on the Ship and elsewhere who I respect and love, not only for their Bible knowledge but for the way they live out its principles in their lives. And then there are the smug arrogant ones, who are unfailingly polite, but who never listen to a word you say, or take your views seriously, because they already know you are wrong........
--------------------
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
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes. Although I use the categories of "liberal" and "evangelical" myself as a useful shorthand, they create some fairly substantial tension for liberal evangelicals like me!
You'll see that I tend to put "scare quotes" around terms like "liberal", as I can't think of them as anything more than "shorthand", as you suggest. At best, they mark a very big, general category. At worst, they tend to function as very tiny pigeon holes into which people are either forced or try to force themselves, sometimes losing limbs in the process!
I recognize--and value--the existence of "liberal evangelicals". Of course, as you doubtless know, there are "evangelicals" who would declare such a category an oxymoron. Our own Gordon, I suspect, would be one such evangelical.
In my misspent youth I tried to define myself and operate as a "liberal evangelical". However, I experienced too much tension living such an existence, both from external critics and my own "inner fundamentalist." I respect anyone who can keep it going. I found I had to "go the whole way" (Gal 5:12 NIV ), first abandoning Christianity altogether, but then returning as a non-evangelical, "liberal catholic" (to use a designation I've picked up from folks in the C of E).
On the possible thread, "Are evangelicals good biblical scholars?" ... I must agree with Wanderer that such a discussion would likely generate more heat than light. I'm already struggling a bit with both wanting to post to discussions here and recognizing that my very busy schedule limits the time I could legitimately give to it. So, I think I'd better beg off. Maybe sometime in the future!
Thomas
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However, the claim that "evangelical" is interchangeable with "biblical" is drawing me back into this thread against my better judgement (DNFtT). My experience was that I left evangelicalism because I found that liberal scholarship took the text more seriously. There is a tendency in some evangelical scholarship to try to make the entire Bible say the same thing at all times, without contradiction.
Or take the issue of authorship. There is strong internal evidence to suggest that the book of Daniel was not written during the Babylonian captivity, and that Paul did not write the Epistles to Timothy. Yet most evangelical commentaries I have read have not addressed this textual evidence seriously. Instead the line is: "These must have an early date because I have already decided that that is the only correct conclusion." It seems to me that the basic presuppotions of many evangelicals lead them to do violence to the Scripture they claim to uphold.
Plenty of evangelicals are open to debate. If we are secure in our belief about scriptural inerrancy, there is nothing to fear from honest investigation. However part of the problem is that many liberal scholars do not come without bias themsleves. For example, many who question the dating of part of Daniel have already decided that an earlier date cannot be correct because to be open to that possibility would also require them to accept the possibility of prophecy as a genuine godly gift.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
There are liberal scholars with bias of course; we all have our own particular set of baggage that affects how we look at things. However (in the case of dating Daniel) I am not personally aware of a Bible scholar of any persuasion who is signed up to a position that requires them to rule out the possibility of prophecy. On the other hand I do know plenty of evangelicals whose views on inspiration means they are committed to an early date for Daniel no matter what the internal evidence might be.
[ 10. September 2005, 20:19: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
--------------------
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
I like the way this thread is developing!
DT I completely agree with your observation about the NIV study Bible. Those evangelicals who use it in the way you describe have, IMHO, appointed a paper pope. Which is of course unevangelical, or as The Wanderer might insist, not GCE ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As for early dating of Daniel or pseudepigraphal authorship of the pastorals, we need more than sweeping assertions; probably separate threads in Kerygmania on all of them if we really wanted to do it justice. During my time at theological college we certainly didn't shy away from asking such questions and interacting with liberal contribution to the debate; I would expect no less from evangelicalism at a scholarly level. One of our essay topics in OT was on the dating of Daniel; we were given the topic, a bibliography, and no guidance whatsoever as to the "right" answer.
The pseudepigraphal question is one that is paid attention to by most of the evangelical commentaries I tend to read (and of course the non-evangelical ones), and not just on the Pastoral epistles. If the question is not addressed at a scholarly level, there is a problem. But given that evangelicals put great store on divine inspiration, there is a prima facie case that the claim for a letter to be written by a certain person, claimed within the text of the letter, should be given a great deal lof weight.
Although I remember a fellow student at Moore College saying "When pseudo-Paul wrote this, she was only joking." It was a minority opinion.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But given that evangelicals put great store on divine inspiration, there is a prima facie case that the claim for a letter to be written by a certain person, claimed within the text of the letter, should be given a great deal lof weight.
I agree with you Gordon with the question mark in my mind over what authoritship by a given person would be been taken to mean at the time of writing. At the time of writing any of the OT or NT books would the claim of autohirship by a named person have been taken to mean that they were fully the author or would it have been taken to mean that they were the 'lead' author in some way? I don't know the answer and I'm not doubting inerrancy-more applying the principle that inerancy needs to be applied with the context that would have been applied to the book at the time of writing.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
I'm not at all persuaded by the idea that pseudepigraphal writings were seen as a good thing by the early church.
These verses from Paul would suggest a concern for authenticity that is lacking in pseudepigrapha:
quote:
2Th. 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
2Th. 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.
Here is an interesting article on bible.org, with good footnotes, about the supposed pseudepigraphal nature of 2 Peter that raises some of the issues.
--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng
Thanks for the post. Do you know Mandy Rice Davies' law (.. well, he would say that...). The final paragraph of Wayne Stiles article is clearly meant to imply that a finding of non-Petrine authorship is a denial of the principle of Biblical Inerrancy. That may be so, but it is no baar against reaching that conclusion on the basis of the evidence. If it is indeed such a bar, then it is a precondition which biasses the enquiry.
Wayne Stiles' arguments are not without weight, but I do not believe he has made his case.
Gordon, the problem is this. If you are prediposed by the principle of biblical inerrancy, and see its loss under examination as very serious, this will affect the way you look at the evidence. You will "keep the faith" with the texts - and fight hard to do so.
The majority of scholars have found against Petrine authorship, not out of some perverse desire to undermine, but simply because that is the way the evidence looks to them after analyses of various kinds and reflection.
My own opinion, which is not scholarly, is this. Chapter 3 throws great doubt on the authorship by Peter. Look at this.
2 Peter 3:3-9
Verse 4 includes the phrase "since the fathers fell asleep". It seeks to answer the question about the delay in the Lord's return. The phrase
--------------------
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
Sorry Gordon, lost half the message. To continue ..
The phrase "since the father's fell asleep" refers to the fathers of the church. Who were they? (The NIV translates this as "our fathers" but the Youngs Literal Translation (and the little Greek I know) suggests that is not justified by the text). And if they have fallen asleep, how is one of them writing the text?
I raise it as an easy to understand illustration and I do not see Wayne Stiles addressing it. By all means take the argument to Kerygmania.
--------------------
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
Apologies for triple post. On reflection, I will open up a Kerygmania thread on this point.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I like the way this thread is developing!
Gordon, I'd like to remind you that this thread was started in response to an offer by you in Hell (on the now defunct "Hillsong's Bobby" thread) to deal with the subject of the OP in Purg if someone started a thread. In your last couple of posts, you seem to have been encouraging its departure from the point at issue, on which your position appears to be increasingly untenable.
Now that Barnabas62 has elected to start a separate thread on authorship of biblical texts, perhaps we could get back to the point at hand?
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Plenty of evangelicals are open to debate. If we are secure in our belief about scriptural inerrancy, there is nothing to fear from honest investigation.
TUC, you've made it clear from previous posts that you are part of a charismatic movement. Would you or Gordon Cheng like to comment on my perception that, based on the evidence of this thread, Gordon Cheng does not appear to consider you as a "proper" evangelical?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I like the way this thread is developing!
Gordon, I'd like to remind you that this thread was started in response to an offer by you in Hell (on the now defunct "Hillsong's Bobby" thread) to deal with the subject of the OP in Purg if someone started a thread.
I have dealt with it. I've admitted what I don't know, I've asserted certain things about Hillsong and invited those who would like to defend prosperity gospel as biblical (and therefore evangelical) to do so. The answer to the specific OP question, as defined by Gracie, is (from my point of view) "maybe". Others may disagree, as is their right.
--------------------
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
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The answer to the specific OP question, as defined by Gracie, is (from my point of view) "maybe". Others may disagree, as is their right.
Fluffy po-mo librul!
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I've asserted certain things about Hillsong and invited those who would like to defend prosperity gospel as biblical (and therefore evangelical) to do so. The answer to the specific OP question, as defined by Gracie, is (from my point of view) "maybe". Others may disagree, as is their right.
IIRC the initial offer was to discuss pentecostal theology, not just Hillsong or prosperity theology.
Be that as it may, I'm still genuinely curious to know whether you would consider a charismatic movement such as the one TUC belongs to, to be evangelical. They believe in inerrancy and, as far as I know, the "sufficiency of Scripture", and bemoan the theology of others who do not have a "high view of Scripture".
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, TUC linked to this site earlier on in this thread (here), and has frequently linked to parts of the same site in the course of debates on the Ship. I don't think you'll find a DB as such, because they make a point of not having one (preferring instead to see themselves as based on "apostolic teaching"). But you might find some pointers here, for instance.
[ 12. September 2005, 07:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Fluffy po-mo librul!
Ah, but I am the one true fluffy po-mo librul.
Although, how would you be defining "librul"?
Anyone who says "maybe" with such vehemence immediately falls into such a category, imnsho.
Pax,
ar
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Gordon Cheng
I'm really sorry to do this, but given your Anglican background, a more "close to home" illustration of a developing charismatic group within UK Anglicanism is to be found on this website. New Wine arose within Anglicanism, it is a much looser network than New Frontiers (which was born out of the New Church movement in the UK) and its doctrines owe much more to Anglicanism than do those of NFI. But it is charismatic. The founder of New Wine (which began through some experiences of renewal at St Andrews Chorley Wood) was the Anglican priest David Pytches, then vicar at Chorleywood.
I've linked you to the leadership page and you can navigate about from there. I will be interested on your take re this movement. Charimatic renewal is not a wholecloth in the UK and New Frontiers is in the more conservative sector of the movement.
--------------------
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
OK, I've started reading the site you linked from TUC's post, Euty. I liked this.
although I'd be interested to know what is meant by this statement from the sermon:
quote:
We must always bear in mind that there is a distinction between the Word of God and our interpretation of it. While God's Word stands for all time, we dare not say the same about our understanding of it! Every time we read the Bible, we are exposing our belief system to the plumb line of truth. We dare not treat it as a source of quotes to reinforce our personal prejudices. We must open up even our most passionately held conviction to the instruction of Scripture.
Depending on what he means, I agree. Of course, if he's attacking something I hold dear, I might complain
I see from other parts of the website that there is an emphasis on tongues speaking, visions and prophecy. Certainly I have no difficulty at all with the idea of tongues speaking or prophecy occurring today; I'm no cessationist. Perhaps I'd have some questions about whether such phenomena are seen within New Frontiers as necessary to individual Christian maturity, or if not necessary, whether they are important, or complementary, or useful, or optional (or some combination of these); and, taking a step back, what is meant by "tongues" and "prophecy" and "baptism in the Spirit" anyway. I couldn't see an obvious answer on the site, but will keep looking, or perhaps TUC might like to comment.
This statement:
quote:
He sent his Son Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully man, to rescue us! Jesus lived the perfect life we could never live and then died publicly on a cross, taking our punishment from his Father in place of us! On the third day he rose from the dead – alive for ever– showing that sin (wrong doing and away ness from God) and death had been defeated! Jesus promised that whoever came to him personally asking for forgiveness and trusting in him would be forgiven and accepted as a child of God
from the Getting to Know God page was wonderful.
--------------------
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
Does your talk of "sufficiency of Scripture" not mean you discount the idea of divine revelation today? If not, what do you mean by that term?
If you're not a cessationist, do your objections to Pentecostalism revolve uniquely around your perception that they teach a prosperity gospel?
[ 14. September 2005, 08:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
Hi Euty,
interesting and important questions
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you're not a cessationist, do your objections to Pentecostalism revolve uniquely around your perception that they teach a prosperity gospel?
No, although I find prosperity gospel particularly obnoxious, and my limited knowledge of older-style Pentecostals suggests that a good number of them do too.
What you say here highlights some but not all of the key questions:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does your talk of "sufficiency of Scripture" not mean you discount the idea of divine revelation today? If not, what do you mean by that term?
I don't at all discount the possibility of divine revelation today (without getting carried away with definitions about ‘prophecy’ or ‘tongues’ and the like). But at this point we start asking, as you have, questions about what "revelation" means.
An example. As I understand it, if I know nothing at all of Christianity and you approach me and tell me that "Jesus Christ is Lord", and summarize the gospel for me, you personally have given me divine revelation, and to the extent that you have reflected the content of the Bible, it is divine infallible revelation, every bit as worthy of being received by me as Scripture. I should listen to you as if it were God speaking to me. I personally think this is what Peter might be referring to when he says:
quote:
1Pet. 4:11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God
We would also have to note in the process, however, that you were only able to know and speak this divine revelation because you yourself had this revelation from someone else, who got it (ultimately) out of the Bible, or that you yourself read it in the Bible. Ultimately “sufficiency of Scripture” must mean not that I can’t learn about God outside the Bible. OK, obviously I can, if you tell me—but any such ‘extra-biblical’ revelation derives from Scripture and stands or falls according to whether or not it may be shown to line up with what is there in Scripture. The church’s authority stands or falls with this.
I don’t as an evangelical accept the claim that the church defines what is Scripture and what isn’t; I would rather say that it is the role of the church to recognize what God has spoken.
As to whether or not someone might receive a specific revelation that is not contained in Scripture, for example “Start a prisons ministry in Wales”, I don’t believe that Scripture closes off this possibility anywhere. It does appear to pave the way for this happening on occasion by giving us the example of prophets like Agabus in the book of Acts, or giving instructions about how we are to weigh prophecy when it comes, in 1 Corinthians 14. But because I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture (and I realize I’m asserting it now rather than demonstrating it), I wouldn’t go down the line that says we are to expect such extra-biblical revelation, or that we ought to pray for it to happen if we don’t see it in our church (naturally we may pray, but I see no guarantee that the answer would be “yes”).
We might add that Hebrews 1:1-4, whilst not absolutely precluding revelation beyond the existing canon of Scripture that stands at the same level of divine authority as canonical Scripture (and if such were discovered, you would presumably go ahead and add it to the canon), does seem to render the possibility diminishingly unlikely.
I would also highlight eschatology and understanding of divine sovereignty as some potential areas for discussion
--------------------
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
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I see from other parts of the website that there is an emphasis on tongues speaking, visions and prophecy. Certainly I have no difficulty at all with the idea of tongues speaking or prophecy occurring today; I'm no cessationist. Perhaps I'd have some questions about whether such phenomena are seen within New Frontiers as necessary to individual Christian maturity, or if not necessary, whether they are important, or complementary, or useful, or optional (or some combination of these); and, taking a step back, what is meant by "tongues" and "prophecy" and "baptism in the Spirit" anyway. I couldn't see an obvious answer on the site, but will keep looking, or perhaps TUC might like to comment.
Well, I'll have a go! (in no sense speaking officially for New Frontiers of course). I guess what would be said about spiritual gifts like the ones you mention is that they are a normal part of being a Christian -not a case of whether they are optional but rather that they are gifts form God intended to be part of the life of every follower of Christ.
With regard to what is meant by 'tongues', they are languages given to us by God which may or may not be existing earthly languages ('tongues of men and angels')and are to be used for praising and worshipping God, especially when we run out of words in our own language to express what we feel.
Prophecy is God's word into the here and now. Whilst prophecy can be about the future, it is much more often God speaking into the present situation.
As for 'Baptism in the Spirit' I'm happy to try and define it but, as its such a well-known phrase, it makes me wonder whether there's something more behind your question Gordon. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific what it is you're asking?
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
As for 'Baptism in the Spirit' I'm happy to try and define it but, as its such a well-known phrase, it makes me wonder whether there's something more behind your question Gordon. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific what it is you're asking?
I would see it as generally synonymous with becoming a Christian, ie baptism in the Spirit = baptism into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, given that none of the three persons of the trinity is separable from the others.
Within Pentecostalism I see it used as a description of some event subsequent to conversion. There are examples in the book of Acts that seem to underlie this claim, but I would say that they are unique to that period of salvation history.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
But still, while we might take issue with the Second Blessing and be properly offended by Prosperity Teaching, there's still been no convincing proof that proves that churches can't be evangelical and still believe these things.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Indeed Wood. In fact, given that everyone I have known who has believed in the Second Blessing and Prosperity Gospel has argued their case from the Bible, it seems to me that they MUST be evangelical. I can't see how the term can be denied to those who use the Scriptures to come to conclusions we don't like.
On the other hand that point has been made many times on this thread. Is it going round in circles now?
--------------------
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:
Indeed Wood. In fact, given that everyone I have known who has believed in the Second Blessing and Prosperity Gospel has argued their case from the Bible, it seems to me that they MUST be evangelical.
That is really quite an idiosyncratic definition of what it means to be evangelical, The Wanderer. Perhaps we now need a new type of evangelical defined as a Wandering Evangelical (WEvo). I understand you may think of a GCE as being unfairly restrictive in definition. Indeed I've acknowledged earlier on the thread that my definition is not the only one; nor even one that I necessarily seek to impose on others, simply that there are others who would see the definition in similar terms and that it stands within the historic tradition of evangelicalism.
However there only seems to be one criteria for being a WEvo, and that is the single solitary claim to find your doctrine in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched or improbable that doctrine might appear to be. Once you've claimed this, it seems you've qualified to be a WEvo, no probs. Unitarians are WEvos. Jehovah' Witness are WEvos. Certain brands of ultra-Orthodox Jews may well be WEvos. That lot in Jonestown, Guyana, 1978, who joined Jim Jones in a mass suicide pact by drinking poison Koo-Aid were WEvos. If I get bumped on the head today and start claiming that according to the Bible, only people whose names are found in the Sydney, Australia White Pages in 2006 will be saved, I would presumably class as a WEvo.
But as you're not an evangelical, The Wanderer, maybe I could ask you for evidence of a single evangelical (of any stripe, not just a GCE) who agrees with you that evangelicalism is a single-issue definition, and that all those groups just mentioned are therefore WEvos.
I would say that the way you're defining 'evangelical' represents a conceptual inflation of the most radical variety.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But still, while we might take issue with the Second Blessing and be properly offended by Prosperity Teaching, there's still been no convincing proof that proves that churches can't be evangelical and still believe these things.
Well my Welsh mate Woodie, if you scroll back up the page you'll find that I have already agreed that believers in a Second Blessing may be evangelicals, even on my more precise definition. I don't think second blessing theology is correct, but it is not so antithetical to Scripture that certain variations of it couldn't be seen as evangelical. The whole discussion would need to be a bit more nuanced than that on this question, or you're right, we would end up going in similar circles. Are you going with the WEvo definition too, then?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That is really quite an idiosyncratic definition of what it means to be evangelical, The Wanderer. Perhaps we now need a new type of evangelical defined as a Wandering Evangelical (WEvo)… However there only seems to be one criteria for being a WEvo, and that is the single solitary claim to find your doctrine in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched or improbable that doctrine might appear to be. Once you've claimed this, it seems you've qualified to be a WEvo, no probs. Unitarians are WEvos. Jehovah' Witness are WEvos. Certain brands of ultra-Orthodox Jews may well be WEvos. That lot in Jonestown, Guyana, 1978, who joined Jim Jones in a mass suicide pact by drinking poison Koo-Aid were WEvos. If I get bumped on the head today and start claiming that according to the Bible, only people whose names are found in the Sydney, Australia White Pages in 2006 will be saved, I would presumably class as a WEvo. .
It seems to me that you're misrepresenting the Wanderer here, though I'm sure he'll tell you himself if you are. So far I haven't seen anything in what he's written about the definition of Evangelical that I would disagree with.
More precisely, I don't think he's said that all you have to do to be Evangelical is to claimto get your ideas from the Bible. Personally I would say, maybe in addition to the things Wood has pointed out, that you'd have to subscribe to the basic tenets of the Christian faith as seen for example in the Nicene Creed, which I think would not include unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses.
As for Jim Jones, this site linked to from the Wikepedia article you linked to above, suggests that Jim Jones did not claim to get his ideas from the Bible.
quote:
Jim Jones got his idea for his cult from Sayville’s Father Divine. Gonrad Goeringer of the AANEWS said "He saw himself as a west coast version of Father Divine..." while Father Divine was still alive. 10 and according to Maurice Brinton "... Jim Jones was inspired by Father Divine." 11 Jim Jones claimed to be a reincarnation Father Divine 17 and even called his movement “Divine Socialism.”
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon
… my definition … stands within the historic tradition of evangelicalism.
Your definition, it seems to me stands only within the tradition of UCCF style evangelicalism. Evangelicalism however existed long before UCCF did, and UCCF is only one flavour of it.
--------------------
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
Heya Woodie,
Yes, I saw that definition. Wider than mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Jim Jones got his idea for his cult from <snippity snip>...
I suspect where Jim Jones claimed to get his ideas from (certainly in the early days) would differ from where Wikipedia claimed he got his ideas from.
We (you and I) would probably be happier with Wikipedia's version. But that's the whole point, isn't it? At some stage, for the discussion to be other than a sterile "well I'm defining it as this", you have to move on to asking, and in some cases contesting, the claims associated with the definition. I don't mind if people go around claiming to be evangelicals in a broad sense, really. So long as we can then move on to the far more interesting discussion of whether the specifics of what they believe can be found in the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon
… my definition … stands within the historic tradition of evangelicalism.
Your definition, it seems to me stands only within the tradition of UCCF style evangelicalism. Evangelicalism however existed long before UCCF did, and UCCF is only one flavour of it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I suspect where Jim Jones claimed to get his ideas from (certainly in the early days) would differ from where Wikipedia claimed he got his ideas from.
We (you and I) would probably be happier with Wikipedia's version. But that's the whole point, isn't it? At some stage, for the discussion to be other than a sterile "well I'm defining it as this", you have to move on to asking, and in some cases contesting, the claims associated with the definition. I don't mind if people go around claiming to be evangelicals in a broad sense, really. So long as we can then move on to the far more interesting discussion of whether the specifics of what they believe can be found in the Bible.
Well, actually the site I linked to wasn't Wikipedia. From what I've read, Jim Jones certainly started off in an Evangelical setting. Later though he moved off into what I would call guruism. When you have a guru, or become a guru, the Bible is no longer your yardstick of authority.
I would say that guruism is a danger for all evangelicals, not just pentecostals and charismatics.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
As for 'Baptism in the Spirit' I'm happy to try and define it but, as its such a well-known phrase, it makes me wonder whether there's something more behind your question Gordon. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific what it is you're asking?
I would see it as generally synonymous with becoming a Christian, ie baptism in the Spirit = baptism into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, given that none of the three persons of the trinity is separable from the others.
Within Pentecostalism I see it used as a description of some event subsequent to conversion. There are examples in the book of Acts that seem to underlie this claim, but I would say that they are unique to that period of salvation history.
In most cases in the NT, people are filled with the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion or soon after That certainly seems the biblical norm and it is right to pray for someone to be filled with the Spirit at the same time as becoming a believer. However there are examples in the NT where it happens later, though not in terms of it being a desirable delay. It is clear in the NT that baptism in the Holy Spirit always produces visible fruit-not necessarily tongues-it could be new boldness to witness, gifts of healing etc. No one ever seems to be left in any doubt that the Holy Spirit has come upon them.
It is synomous with becoming a Christian in that it should happen around the same time but it is not the one and the same process any more than becoming a Chrstian makes you somehow automatically baptised in water. Baptism in water should take place immedately or soon after conversion but is still a distict moment from that of becoming a believer. So it is with baptism in the Spirit. Culturally churches have tended to defer baptism in water. There is something about our expectations that all too often has ended up deferring Baptism in the Spirit.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Your definition, it seems to me stands only within the tradition of UCCF style evangelicalism. Evangelicalism however existed long before UCCF did, and UCCF is only one flavour of it.
I would love to know what this means. Could you clarify? as in what you mean by "UCCF evangelicalism"?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I am very happy with Alan's definition, especially as it is wider than the model "evangelicals are those who agree with me" that has been propounded here. quote:
First, I think we need a broad definition of evangelical. The one that's most commonly used in the UK (for example, it's in Tomlinsons Post Evangelical), and has been given on the Ship several times is a four point definition:
Emphasis on the Cross, often (but not exclusively) taking a Penal Substititionary Atonement model.
Centrality of Scripture, it's "supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct" (could be inerrancy or infallibility)
Importance of conversion, evangelicals believe in a need to make a personal decision to follow Christ.
Activism, the Christian faith is something that results in action - primarily evangelism, though also social action.
Of these, the Centrality of Scripture seems to me to be the most distinctive aspect of evengelicalism, although I could be mistaken here. However if I am right that certainly puts JWs, Christadelphians and so forth at the evangelical end of the spectrum. Although they have fallen out of the limits of what is normally considered orthodox Christianity they have done so in order to be faithful to Biblical teaching (as they understand it). Which, in turn raises the question - is the Bible enough? Can Sola Scriptura really work?
[ 15. September 2005, 09:03: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I suspect where Jim Jones claimed to get his ideas from (certainly in the early days) would differ from where Wikipedia claimed he got his ideas from.
We (you and I) would probably be happier with Wikipedia's version. But that's the whole point, isn't it? At some stage, for the discussion to be other than a sterile "well I'm defining it as this", you have to move on to asking, and in some cases contesting, the claims associated with the definition. I don't mind if people go around claiming to be evangelicals in a broad sense, really. So long as we can then move on to the far more interesting discussion of whether the specifics of what they believe can be found in the Bible.
Well, actually the site I linked to wasn't Wikipedia. From what I've read, Jim Jones certainly started off in an Evangelical setting. Later though he moved off into what I would call guruism. When you have a guru, or become a guru, the Bible is no longer your yardstick of authority.
I would say that guruism is a danger for all evangelicals, not just pentecostals and charismatics.
Guruism can also be institutionalised as well, IMO.
Could the Catholic Church said to be a guru?
Could a certain accepted theological view not become a guru?
A question is asked "is the Bible enough? Can Sola Scriptura really work?" This is in the context of people who were evangelical but who move beyond that into guruism, and also I guess, not just from evangelicalism, but from other viewpoints as well.
In the case of the JW's, it was a rejection of Congregational evangelicalism that led the founder to rethink his beliefs and come up with what became JW theology - and he had to rewrite certain passages in the Bible to shore up his new found opinions.
In the case of the Mormons, they had to write a whole new book to justify their beliefs.
I would therefore say, that Sola Scriptura may be quite valid, if only to stop people from going away into flights of theological fancy - most of which end up denying the unique person of Christ.
It is only in the altering or adding to Scripture that we tend to get problems.
The Reformation is probably the best example of trying to get back to the message of Scripture by removing some of the alterations and additions that had been allowed to hide the real message plainly revealed in the Bible.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I am very happy with Alan's definition, especially as it is wider than the model "evangelicals are those who agree with me" that has been propounded here.
I don't know anyone who has put that definition on this thread, The Wanderer. Would you mind linking to where you found it?
quote:
Which, in turn raises the question - is the Bible enough? Can Sola Scriptura really work?
What do you mean by Sola Scriptura?
TUC, your view of what baptism in the Spirit is not mine, but what would be of interest to me would be how far you insist on such a view as normative for all mature Christians? Should all mature Christians have had the baptism in the Spirit as you understand it, or is it possible to reach Christian maturity without ever having experienced what you describe, or wanting to? Where for example would a John Stott or a Jim Packer fit (both, AFAIK, have never had an experience such as you describe)?
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
TUC, your view of what baptism in the Spirit is not mine, but what would be of interest to me would be how far you insist on such a view as normative for all mature Christians? Should all mature Christians have had the baptism in the Spirit as you understand it, or is it possible to reach Christian maturity without ever having experienced what you describe, or wanting to? Where for example would a John Stott or a Jim Packer fit (both, AFAIK, have never had an experience such as you describe)?
I don't know about TUC himself, but I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."
Also, his exposition of the first half of Romans 7 was the best I have heard.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
GC, you asked where the idea "evangelicals are those who agree with me" could be found on this thread. It seems to me that plenty of evidence for this view has been given, but I would draw your attention to comments such as: quote:
If someone asked me to write a DB from scratch, I would add statements that specifically exclude the Hillsong-Pentecostal notion of prosperity and physical wellbeing as a near-certain indicator of God's approval and blessing. I would indicate that suffering rather than prosperity was to be an expected accompaniment of trust in Christ.
Also and FWIW I would almost certainly include a statement that specifically excluded N.T. Wright's understanding of the nature of justification, and reaffirmed a traditional Lutheran understanding.
You are happy to exclude, as part of your definition of "evangelical", an entire church, possibly an entire denomination, and certainly a well respected evangelical scholar. After six pages of this thread you haven't advanced anything more than personal prejudice to support the exclusion of the first two and, having raised the issue, you have failed to give any explanation for your rejection of Wright.
In addition, when I have attempted to follow the limited reasoning you have provided you have mocked my views: quote:
However there only seems to be one criteria for being a WEvo, and that is the single solitary claim to find your doctrine in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched or improbable that doctrine might appear to be. Once you've claimed this, it seems you've qualified to be a WEvo, no probs.
despite having asserted earlier: 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.
If you wish to change your position in order to laugh at me, please feel free. I am not offended by the tactic but I do feel it undermines what little credibility your views may have possesed.
In addition, when I raised the question of how seriously evangelicals really take the Bible, you stated that Kerygmania was the place to pursue such issues. Such a thread was started, but you refused to engage in the discussion. When I now raise the issue of Sola Scriptura you question what the phrase means, rather than taking the point seriously. In short this entire thread is testimony to the bankrupcy of your personal position - not the bankrupcy of evangelicalism as a whole, but the narrow and restricted version which seems to be your personal preserve.
(Hosts: throughout the above I have tried to attack the issue rather than the person. If you feel I have crossed the line I accept your rebuke in advance.)
--------------------
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 Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
TUC, your view of what baptism in the Spirit is not mine, but what would be of interest to me would be how far you insist on such a view as normative for all mature Christians? Should all mature Christians have had the baptism in the Spirit as you understand it, or is it possible to reach Christian maturity without ever having experienced what you describe, or wanting to? Where for example would a John Stott or a Jim Packer fit (both, AFAIK, have never had an experience such as you describe)?
I don't know about TUC himself, but I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."
Also, his exposition of the first half of Romans 7 was the best I have heard.
Yes I do think that being filled with the Spirit should be normative for all Chrsitnas but I do not believe that being filled with the Spirit is the only way of being gifted by God and there are many, many fine Christians who would not claim to be so filled. Its not a qualification badge. It is a power to help you live the christian life. There are some Christians who are particularly gifted from God anyway and achieve a lot from that (one does have to wonder how much even more they might achieve for the kingdom if they were filled with the Spirit too).
With reference to Terry Virgo's comments, whilst I don't know the detail of what he said, I suspect it owuld be osmething similar ot what i have heard him say before-that where believers have genuinely reached different views from scripture then, whilst still being very clear about what one believes and not shifting from that, it is clearly right to respect and accept that with different views as fellow followers of Christ. Moreover, even where we disagree, there may be many other areas where we can learn from each other. Indeed we need each other as part of the body of Christ as no one indivdual or group has everything. I placed a link on another thread that reflects this principle and it is still relevant here
Eirenic That'll be my word of the week ...
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Could you clarify? as in what you mean by "UCCF evangelicalism"?
Hi Leprechaun,
Maybe you should ask Gordon, as he seems to be the expert on UCCF evangelicalism and he has agreed with my analysis on that point.
From where I'm sitting (20 years on from having had any direct contact with UCCF), and from my experience, I'd say that there's a heavy anglican influence. Also members who became Christians in that particular setting don't seem to have much awareness of other kinds of Evangelical churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Guruism can also be institutionalised as well, IMO.
Could the Catholic Church said to be a guru?
Could a certain accepted theological view not become a guru?
I was using guruism to refer to following the teachings of one charismatic (in the general sense of the word) individual. Maybe there can be a similar phenomenon with institutions or theologies, but I'd prefer to give that another name.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I heard the head of this group of churches speak at an interdenominational conference last week, and he was most eirenic on this issue. He encouraged listeners to "explore things of the Spirit" but acknowledged that many have and come to different conclusions to him, and said he was "fine with that."
I'm not sure he would say the same thing at a conference of his own movement. In fact I'm pretty sure he wouldn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
