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 7)

 - 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?
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144

 - Posted      Profile for Dubious Thomas         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
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).

Your answer seems to rest on the assumption that there is a particular way to become filled with the Spirit and something that provides evidence of such filling. Or have I misunderstood you? I ask, in particular, because of your reference at the end of the quoted paragraph to "gifted" Christians who, you assume, are not "filled with the Spirit". How do you know they are not?

Thomas

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 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 
TUC, DT's question would be mine.

I'm not sure I would characterize the position you're taking as evangelical (trying to stay on OP here), although in practice we may find a lot to agree on. And as I've said on this thread, it's not just evangelicals who are Christians.

The Wanderer , your answer is revealing if somewhat bizarre. Let's review:

You ask me how I define 'evangelical'. I respond, making it clear that my definition is one of many available, and that while I don't insist on it as normative, I would say that there are others who share it and have shared it in one way or another at least since the early days of CICCU, but I would argue for a great deal longer than that.

I also provide reasons why a doctrinal basis can't be frozen in aspic, but while holding certain basic truths unvaried, must address contemporary concerns—not merely those of fifty years ago, or a hundred years ago.

So in response to your request, I've shown how a particular strand of evangelicalism, that I represent, might reasonably be applied to the question in the OP.

You then respond, in effect "aha!—you only think those people who agree with you are evangelicals."

Well, no. There are liberal evangelicals, pentecostal evangelicals, Wandering evangelicals, and who knows what besides. I'm simply saying that the version of evangelicalism I represent is not solipsistic but has its roots in the mainstream British evangelical tradition of the last 100 years. It's a fairly modest claim which Gracie has picked up on but you seem to still be struggling with.

That tangents come up on the way such as NT Wright and the allegedly pseudepigraphal nature of 2 Peter that I identify as tangents, and suggest would be best in their place, you take as evidence of my unwillingness to discuss. Why not rather assume that I would be delighted to join in those tangents as threads in their own right, when I have finished dealing with this thread that we are still on? But thank you for apologizing.

--------------------
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:
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.

I was agreeing with what I guessed I thought you might be meaning. But as Leprechaun found it confusing, it's possible that my guess was wrong. Back to you on this one.

quote:
Gracie:


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.
Not a big point, but I'm curious. What is the evidence for your view?

--------------------
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      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
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).

Your answer seems to rest on the assumption that there is a particular way to become filled with the Spirit and something that provides evidence of such filling. Or have I misunderstood you? I ask, in particular, because of your reference at the end of the quoted paragraph to "gifted" Christians who, you assume, are not "filled with the Spirit". How do you know they are not?

Thomas

I did actually originally consider adding to my reply that some may be baptised in the spirit without them recognising it and I think that may be possible. My hesitation lies in the fact that the NT it always seems pretty clear that the given moment that the spirit had come upon individuals by different manifesations at that time. Clearly there have been individuals who have been baptised in the spirit without them being aware of that particular jargon-John Wesley would be a good example.

--------------------
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      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
GC, you provided a definition of evangelicalism that was pretty uncontroversial and which would be widely recognised. Somehow you made a leap from that definiton to saying that Hillsong, Pentecostalism generally and NT Wright in particular are not evangelicals. That is not a conclusion that follows from your definition, and you have still to provide a justification for that leap.

We are now seven pages in and you have not addressed the main point of this thread. In addition, various other important issues have come up through the discussion. Broadly speaking your response has been to say: "Gosh, that's interesting," and then ignore them completely; I do not think you have dealt with any of them seriously. I am afraid that my opinion of your ability to engage in a rational discussion is sinking fast. Likewise my opinion of your ability to read with understanding; despite your thanks I have not aplogised to you.

--------------------
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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having followed the thread, I am identifying a further tangent, namely the personal argument between the Wanderer and Gordon Cheng. As both of you know that personal arguments belong in Hell, I assume that you plan to take the tangent there and not pursue it any further up here.

Callan
Purgatory Host.

--------------------
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
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.
That may or may not be true. But It is clear that he envisions the movement as committed to certain evangelical distinctives as central, and other NFI/Pentecostal disctinctives as secondary.

When it's a church conference of course you can teach what your church teaches. But it does show that for at least this strand of Pentecostalism, it is believed one can be a mature believer without having certain experiences forced on you. Which to me shows (I think) that this is not a Gospel plus issue.

As for UCCF style evangelicalism, in my (considerable) experience, these days it has far more free church than Anglican influence. But the whole UCCF thing is another thread - didn't mean to derail.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 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 
Fair enough Callan.

TW, I didn't think you were apologizing to me, but I took it that you were apologizing for a potentially personal attack, and I was the only one who'd been attacked, I thanked you.

I'm still not sure I see your problem. I will discuss NT Wright on another thread if invited, when this one is finished. The only thing I have so far objected to with regard to Pentecostalism is the variant that involves prosperity gospel. If you want me to go into detail about why prosperity gospel is offensive and unbiblical and therefore unevangelical (and I've already asserted that evangelicalism needs to be biblical), then I will. But so far no-one has leapt to the defense of prosperity gospel. Perhaps you would like to?

--------------------
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 
Assuming what Lep and TUC have said is accurate concerning the New Frontiers group(and I have no reason to assume that it isn't), they sound like they would be evangelical.

Were they to insist on their distinctives as essentials, I would have a difficulty (sounds like Lep might too).

There you go Gracie, how about that?

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan, I've been called to Hell once already in the course of this thread. If I'm called there again I will go; otherwise I will bow out of this "discussion". It seems to me to be going round and round in circles.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm simply saying that the version of evangelicalism I represent is not solipsistic but has its roots in the mainstream British evangelical tradition of the last 100 years. It's a fairly modest claim which Gracie has picked up on but you seem to still be struggling with.

Eh? I don't think I have picked up on anything the Wanderer hasn't. I certainly don't see your position as having its roots in the mainstream of British evangelical tradition, as I have been at pains to point out several times.

Your claim that your version of evangelicalism is not solipsistic is also made in the article by Mark Thompson which you linked to earlier in the thread. However I must say it seems to me that the evidence goes against this claim. It's like a Chinese person claiming that only Chinese are Asians, and then when someone points out that Indians are too, saying "What's the problem; it's not just the Chinese that are human beings.


quote:

Not a big point, but I'm curious. What is the evidence for your view?



Personal experience.

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:


But It is clear that he envisions the movement as committed to certain evangelical distinctives as central, and other NFI/Pentecostal disctinctives as secondary.

Again I am fairly sure that what you are saying here is not accurate.

quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

The only thing I have so far objected to with regard to Pentecostalism is the variant that involves prosperity gospel. If you want me to go into detail about why prosperity gospel is offensive and unbiblical and therefore unevangelical (and I've already asserted that evangelicalism needs to be biblical), then I will. But so far no-one has leapt to the defence of prosperity gospel. Perhaps you would like to?

Well I'm not going to defend the prosperity doctrine because as I've already said I find it just as abhorrent as anyone else around here. I do think though that I could show objectively how they come to their conclusions from the Bible. You think that disqualifies them from calling themselves evangelical because you think that "evangelical" and 'biblical" are cognates. Most other people do not see these words as being synonymous, so that you can be evangelical, whilst holding to some doctrines that are not biblical. I would say that all evangelicals are in this case on one point or another.

quote:
Assuming what Lep and TUC have said is accurate concerning the New Frontiers group (and I have no reason to assume that it isn't), they sound like they would be evangelical.

Were they to insist on their distinctives as essentials, I would have a difficulty (sounds like Lep might too).

There you go Gracie, how about that?

Well it would depend what you mean by "essentials". Newfrontiers would not say baptism in the Spirit is essential for salvation, but as TUC has pointed out they would see it has being normative for Christian experience.

Which reminds me that I wanted to respond to something TUC said yesterday:

quote:

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.

I thought Charismatics made a distinction between spiritual gifts and fruit? Maybe you meant that there is some visible manifestation of the Spirit?

--------------------
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
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144

 - Posted      Profile for Dubious Thomas         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered
I did actually originally consider adding to my reply that some may be baptised in the spirit without them recognising it and I think that may be possible. My hesitation lies in the fact that the NT it always seems pretty clear that the given moment that the spirit had come upon individuals by different manifesations at that time. Clearly there have been individuals who have been baptised in the spirit without them being aware of that particular jargon-John Wesley would be a good example.

Thank you. This does clarify things. I differ from you in my understanding of what the biblical witness says about the Spirit and His ministry, including how and when He baptizes believers <tangent in a tangent: I feel rather strongly that we should always be clear in our writing/talking about the Spirit that we are referring to God, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and not some abstract energy. The Holy Spirit isn't an "it", He's a He ... or even a She, as the original Hebrew noun is feminine!>.

But, as I think this is a tangent to the thread ... and I kind of jumped in without thinking how it might disrupt things (for which I apologize) ... I'll suggest that it might become a separate thread at some later time, and as is convenient.

Every good wish,
Thomas

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 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 Gracie:

Your claim that your version of evangelicalism is not solipsistic is also made in the article by Mark Thompson which you linked to earlier in the thread.

Aha! You acknowledge there are two of us! [Smile]

quote:
Gracie:Well I'm not going to defend the prosperity doctrine because as I've already said I find it just as abhorrent as anyone else around here. I do think though that I could show objectively how they come to their conclusions from the Bible.
And in the process, it would be glaringly apparent to you how wrong they were, and how their reading of the Bible would be a misreading, and not a trivial misreading either.

quote:
Gracie:You think that disqualifies them from calling themselves evangelical because you think that "evangelical" and 'biblical" are cognates.
Almost true. I qualify this by saying that it is possible to disagree on some issues (eg the age of the earth, the date of the return of Christ) and still be evangelical, even if mistaken (ie, you thought you were getting the Bible right on this, but you weren't). It is possible, in other words, to be evangelical and disagree on inessentials. Prosperity gospel would be an area that I have suggested is non-trivial, and as yet I've failed to get anyone to dispute this. Attitude to baptism in the spirit, as expressed by New Frontiers ('though I note your disagreement), looks to be one of those inessentials.

So you see it is possible to make some progress in this discussion, painstaking though it might be. We have now identified two issues and shown a way to answer the OP with reference to them.

quote:
Gracie:Most other people do not see these words as being synonymous, so that you can be evangelical, whilst holding to some doctrines that are not biblical.
OK, but hopefully you've now noted my qualification. Which means that our positions are slightly closer, on this question, than might at first blush have been imagined.

quote:
Gracie said:
quote:
Gordon said:
There you go Gracie, how about that?

Well it would depend what you mean by "essentials".
Exactly. Still, "what do you mean by essentials?" is a meaningful question, and I've given you an example of something I would say is (prosperity doctrine) and something I would say isn't (baptism in the Spirit as potentially but not necessarly subsequent to conversion). Looking at specific pointers like this seems a useful way forward.

--------------------
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:

Almost true. I qualify this by saying that it is possible to disagree on some issues (eg the age of the earth, the date of the return of Christ) and still be evangelical, even if mistaken (ie, you thought you were getting the Bible right on this, but you weren't). It is possible, in other words, to be evangelical and disagree on inessentials. Prosperity gospel would be an area that I have suggested is non-trivial, and as yet I've failed to get anyone to dispute this. Attitude to baptism in the spirit, as expressed by New Frontiers ('though I note your disagreement), looks to be one of those inessentials…

Exactly. Still, "what do you mean by essentials?" is a meaningful question, and I've given you an example of something I would say is (prosperity doctrine) and something I would say isn't (baptism in the Spirit as potentially but not necessarily subsequent to conversion). Looking at specific pointers like this seems a useful way forward.

So it does come down to the definition of what is seen as being essential. So how you do you decide? What criteria do you use?

And where exactly do you perceive us to be in disagreement about New Frontiers?

--------------------
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 it does come down to the definition of what is seen as being essential. So how you do you decide? What criteria do you use?

And where exactly do you perceive us to be in disagreement about New Frontiers?

On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.

On the first question, some issues are easy and I've already made reference to them. The ecumenical creeds, the UCCF DB, and Reformed documents such as the 39 Articles, Heidelberg catechism, Westminster confession etc would capture the essence of these.

The trouble is that what might normally be considered an inessential could, under certain circumstances, shift and become essential. Suppose I inhale too much lead exhaust from the cars on the way to the office of Matthias Media, and arrive having fully convinced myself that if everybody shared the spiritual blessing of dying their hair blonde, they would be better, more powerful and effective in their Christian lives.

Suppose in addition, due to my small-c charismatic personality and the general gullibility of Sydney folk that I managed to persuade a number of other people similarly, so that you suddenly had a church of blonde people who went around teaching that the quickest way to salvation was to dye your hair blonde and spend your time on the beach, preferably Bondi, but could be Brighton or any handy beach.

Suppose in addition I taught that this was clearly based on Scripture (let's say Gen 27:11), and that those who denied the blessing of blondeness were consigning themselves to spiritual ineffectiveness and could even be resisting the work of God.

If my new-fangled teaching took off in Christendom more broadly, you would then have a doctrine of blondeness which started off as completely trivial and utterly irrelevant (I'm assuming here that the bible doesn't mandate a hair colour for christians), to something that had started to assume real significance. If enough people became convinced of my blonde heresy, then you might eventually argue that it had become such a distraction from the gospel (a "gospel plus" heresy) that it was essential to Christian belief that this blonde teaching be denied by the church.

You may think this example is ridiculous (well, OK, it is [Smile] but it's been a long week and my girls have been sick!). But substitue "circumcision" for "dying your hair blonde" and you will see how somthing that is inessential could actually become essential (Gal 5:2).

Back on OP, I would say that if apparent Pentecostal distinctives such as speaking in tongues, second blessing theology, necessity of miracles of healing and so forth were to be insisted upon as essential (rather than simply helpful or possible) parts of the Christian life, this would be a matter of a concern because it would be adding to the gospel. It would then become essential to defining the gospel to deny this latest addition to it. (That's not what I hear New Frontiers as doing, by the way, but I'm no expert)

--------------------
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:
On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.



I have no doubt of Leprechaun's account either. I also know for a fact and from personal experience that within the movement these things are taught as normative experience for all believers, as has been confirmed by TUC. I have been in more than one meeting where everyone has been instructed to speak in tongues.

quote:


On the first question… some issues are easy and I've already made reference to them. The ecumenical creeds, the UCCF DB, and Reformed documents such as the 39 Articles, Heidelberg catechism, Westminster confession etc would capture the essence of these… etc…

Back on OP, I would say that if apparent Pentecostal distinctives such as speaking in tongues, second blessing theology, necessity of miracles of healing and so forth were to be insisted upon as essential (rather than simply helpful or possible) parts of the Christian life, this would be a matter of a concern because it would be adding to the gospel. It would then become essential to defining the gospel to deny this latest addition to it.

Well, as a good friend of mine once said "Chacun met ses plus où il veut", which being translated means "Everyone has some form of Gospel plus". For example there are things the Anglican church insists on (for example ordained priests, particular clothing for priests at certain times, consecration of bishops…) which in my opinion are not Biblical. However that does not lead me to say that it's impossible to be an evangelical and an anglican.

I would also say that your "Gospel of suffering" (which is about as oxymoronic as you can get in my opinion) is no more biblical than the prosperity gospel. It seems to me that in your desire to flee the one, you have fallen into error at the opposite extreme. As far as I can see from the New Testament, the Christian is promised persecution if he lives for the Gospel, but also great blessing in this life as well as in the hereafter.

--------------------
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
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.



I have no doubt of Leprechaun's account either. I also know for a fact and from personal experience that within the movement these things are taught as normative experience for all believers, as has been confirmed by TUC. I have been in more than one meeting where everyone has been instructed to speak in tongues.


I'm very sorry - I really didn't mean to cast any doubt on Gracie's experiences, only to say that by the head of NFI's comments and involvement in a particular interdenominational movement, I thought his position was something.

Gracie obviosuly has far more experience of the movement than I, and I don't want to doubt the veracity of her clearly far more extensive experiences of the group of churches than me.

[ 17. September 2005, 13:31: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No problem, Leprechaun. [Cool]

--------------------
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      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On the second question, I was just referring to the fact that you had raised doubts about Lep's account of what NF would teach in contexts other than the conference he attended. I know nothing of them 'cept what I've read here, so I was giving his account the benefit of the doubt.



I have no doubt of Leprechaun's account either. I also know for a fact and from personal experience that within the movement these things are taught as normative experience for all believers, as has been confirmed by TUC. I have been in more than one meeting where everyone has been instructed to speak in tongues.


Without probably having been at the same meetings you've been at Gracie, I suspect that it depends what sort of interpetation you put on a given situation. If, for example, the person leading a meeting says 'let's all worship the Lord in the tongues He has given us', I wouldn't say that they are 'instructing' people to speak in tongues-if someone hasn't got the gift of tongues or doesn't want to participate, how could you 'instruct' them to, and how would someone relectantly speaking in tongues be any sort of worship to God anyway? All the worship leader would be doing is guiding the next step of worship in the just the same way 'let's sing number 22'.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Without probably having been at the same meetings you've been at Gracie, I suspect that it depends what sort of interpetation you put on a given situation. If, for example, the person leading a meeting says 'let's all worship the Lord in the tongues He has given us', I wouldn't say that they are 'instructing' people to speak in tongues-if someone hasn't got the gift of tongues or doesn't want to participate, how could you 'instruct' them to, and how would someone relectantly speaking in tongues be any sort of worship to God anyway? All the worship leader would be doing is guiding the next step of worship in the just the same way 'let's sing number 22'.

TUC, I completely agree that it doesn't make sense to speak in tongues if you haven't got that gift. However if the aim is corporate worship, to take your analogy, what would be the point of announcing a song that not everyone can sing?

Anyway I was thinking more of leaders' prayer meetings, where "apostolic leaders" said "Come on now, everybody speak in tongues". I maintain, that the most generous interpretation I can have of this, is that they fully expect that speaking in tongues is the normative experience of mature Christians.

--------------------
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      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Without probably having been at the same meetings you've been at Gracie, I suspect that it depends what sort of interpetation you put on a given situation. If, for example, the person leading a meeting says 'let's all worship the Lord in the tongues He has given us', I wouldn't say that they are 'instructing' people to speak in tongues-if someone hasn't got the gift of tongues or doesn't want to participate, how could you 'instruct' them to, and how would someone relectantly speaking in tongues be any sort of worship to God anyway? All the worship leader would be doing is guiding the next step of worship in the just the same way 'let's sing number 22'.

TUC, I completely agree that it doesn't make sense to speak in tongues if you haven't got that gift. However if the aim is corporate worship, to take your analogy, what would be the point of announcing a song that not everyone can sing?

I'm not sure what you're suggesitng Gracie-that no one should encourage people to speak in tongues in worship because some can't?
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
[QUOTE]
[qb]
Anyway I was thinking more of leaders' prayer meetings, where "apostolic leaders" said "Come on now, everybody speak in tongues". I maintain, that the most generous interpretation I can have of this, is that they fully expect that speaking in tongues is the normative experience of mature Christians.

Tongues is the most common evidnece of baptism in the Holy Spirit in the NT so I would not say it is unreasonable for them to assume that most people at such a meeting can speak in tongues.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Well, as a good friend of mine once said "Chacun met ses plus où il veut", which being translated means "Everyone has some form of Gospel plus". For example there are things the Anglican church insists on (for example ordained priests, particular clothing for priests at certain times, consecration of bishops…) which in my opinion are not Biblical. However that does not lead me to say that it's impossible to be an evangelical and an anglican.

You're not seriously expecting me to stand up for worldwide Anglicanism in its contemporary capacity as many-headed incoherent hydra, are you? Of course ordination, funny clothes and consecration of bishops is unbiblical. And in those bits of the Anglican church which insist that the acceptance of such things are part of the gospel

(are there any who think this, BTW? we don't think that in these here parts)

it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

quote:
I would also say that your "Gospel of suffering" (which is about as oxymoronic as you can get in my opinion) is no more biblical than the prosperity gospel. It seems to me that in your desire to flee the one, you have fallen into error at the opposite extreme.
Nonsense. all that shows is that you've not understood what I was saying. This is what I think:

quote:
originally posted by Gracie:
As far as I can see from the New Testament, the Christian is promised persecution if he lives for the Gospel, but also great blessing in this life as well as in the hereafter.

OOM, I am a bit concerned by what you describe of an insistence on speaking in tongues in NF, and if this is true, then it isn't evangelical, and may be "gospel plus". But I'm sure we all have a tendency to do this. The real test comes with what we do when someone points it out to us.

[ 20. September 2005, 02:48: 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
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

*cough*Jensen*cough*Tom Wright*cough*Gumbel*cough*

Sorry. I'll get a glass of water.

And re: persecution. Well, Gordo, me old koala-baiter, the Christian is promised persecution... but can you honestly, hand on heart say you've been persecuted, and that your colleagues at Matthias Media have too? in the manner of the NT Church? In the manner of the Christians in Eritrea and Bhutan and Myanmar ad North Korea who get beaten and disenfranchised and tortured and killed?

You may well do, but if you do, I reserve the right to laugh at you.

[ 20. September 2005, 04:50: Message edited by: Wood ]

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

*cough*Jensen*cough*Tom Wright*cough*Gumbel*cough*


Context please, ya sheep shooting Welshie.

I'm Anglican too btw.

Gumbel's a charo.

Wright's for another thread.

quote:
And re: persecution. Well, Gordo, me old koala-baiter, the Christian is promised persecution... but can you honestly, hand on heart say you've been persecuted, and that your colleagues at Matthias Media have too?
Not telling.

But God keeps his promises, and "all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). I always tell people who read this verse and feel disappointed at missing out not to worry, God is faithful and if he promised it it will certainly happen. So don't be sad, just be patient.

Anyway what's the preoccupation with physical suffering, Woodster? I don't deny that it's real suffering, but suffering in hell will be just as real and I suspect that physical suffering will be the least of 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
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon has already said (on the thread giving rise to this one) that he doesn't consider N.T. Wright an evangelical, for reasons having to do with +Wright's theory of the atonement, but declined to give specifics.

ETA: cross-posted with Gordon.

[ 20. September 2005, 05:09: Message edited by: Sienna ]

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

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would be delighted to give specifics. But I will wait until this thread has run its course, and starting Friday I'll be away for two weeks with limited internet access.

I think Wright's attempt to overturn the Reformed understanding of justification is confused and confusing. he appears to rely on a reconstruction of Palestinian Second temple Judaism that is somewhat overconfident in asserting what Jesus' and Paul's contemporaries 'must' have believed.

But I don't have time to argue two threads simultaneously, and soon won't have any time at all for a couple of weeks, so I'll defer with apologies.

[ 20. September 2005, 05:16: 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
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My (limited) experience of NewFrontiers is very mixed. There are people and congregations, posibly a majority, that I would regard as thoroughly evangelical. And there are ones I would regard as not evangelical at all, usually because they are so obsessed with the external manifestations that they hardly spend any time with the Bible.

My experience (NF and others) is still firmly that, by most definitions of "evangelical" there are self-described pentecostals who are and there are self-described pentecostals who aren't.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  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 
Well, with respect, if it's going to be an explanation of how you disagree with Wright's interpretation of Scripture, or that you find it confused or confusing, then we're still left with:

1. One can't be mistaken in interpretation of Scripture and be an evangelical; and/or 2. asserting what Paul or Jesus believed overconfidently prohibits one from being an evangelical (unless you're correct in what you're asserting, presumably - see no. 1 above).

So it sounds like it would be a re-hash of this thread and several others in terms of "defining" evangelicals, just with different specifics, so I'm not entirely sure what it would accomplish - (although Second Temple Judiasm features heavily in one of my classes next month, so perhaps I'd get some homework assistance/an essay out of it. [Devil] )

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

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting Gracie-that no one should encourage people to speak in tongues in worship because some can't? … Tongues is the most common evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit in the NT so I would not say it is unreasonable for them to assume that most people at such a meeting can speak in tongues.

TUC, I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. All I'm doing is saying that in that setting these things are considered to be the normative experience of mature Christians, or to put it in your most recent words: they assume that most people at such a meeting can speak in tongues and want to do so. They also make it quite clear that they have that assumption.

quote:
Originally posted by Gordon:

Of course ordination, funny clothes and consecration of bishops is unbiblical. And in those bits of the Anglican church which insist that the acceptance of such things are part of the gospel… it would indeed be impossible to be Anglican and evangelical.

Are there any places within the Anglican church where ordination and consecration of bishops is not implemented? Are there any places in the Anglican church where priests do not have to wear special clothes in order to consecrate the bread and the wine?

I notice a sudden nuance here in your formulations: "insist that the acceptance of such things are part of the gospel". I'm not sure that all prosperity teachers would insist that prosperity is necessary for salvation.


quote:

Nonsense. all that shows is that you've not understood what I was saying. This is what I think:



Actually you'll notice that you've quoted what I think. I was summarising your position from your posts way up on page 2 where you say that suffering is a necessary entailment of the gospel and will characterise the life of the believer. No talk about blessing there.

There again maybe you've changed your mind since then, and haven't thought to say so.

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Are there any places in the Anglican church where priests do not have to wear special clothes in order to consecrate the bread and the wine?

Quite a few Church of England evangelicals don't, though it is probably getting rarer.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Are there any places in the Anglican church where priests do not have to wear special clothes in order to consecrate the bread and the wine?

Sydney. I've seen it "done" in a suit, or shirt and pants, numerous times. I'd say the elements are consecrated this way in most Sydney Anglican(*) churches. I've only seen vestments worn in the A/C parishes.


(*)by which I mean typically Sydney evangelical parishes

[ 21. September 2005, 04:50: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Well, with respect, if it's going to be an explanation of how you disagree with Wright's interpretation of Scripture, or that you find it confused or confusing, then we're still left with:

1. One can't be mistaken in interpretation of Scripture and be an evangelical;

I just want to qualify this to say that it is possible to be mistaken on inessentials and class as an evangelical. But justification is one of those areas where we mustn’t get it wrong. I’m with Luther when he says that this is the article by which the church stands or falls.


quote:
Sienna:
So it sounds like it would be a re-hash of this thread and several others in terms of "defining" evangelicals, just with different specifics, so I'm not entirely sure what it would accomplish - (although Second Temple Judiasm features heavily in one of my classes next month, so perhaps I'd get some homework assistance/an essay out of it. [Devil] )

Quite agree that another thread defining evangelicals would lack a bit of interest.

No doubt if you’re looking at Second Temple Judaism you’ll get pointed towards this , which is well worth a look.


quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I'm not sure that all prosperity teachers would insist that prosperity is necessary for salvation.

Of course they wouldn’t, if they had half a brain. That’s why discussions such as this can be so tricky. The claim and the reality can be mismatched.

But as I understand it, prosperity gospel implies or states directly that if you believe the gospel (and in some cases, give generously to the church) you will be blessed materially. Such teaching can be found in Brian Houston’s book You need more money, and I heard him imply similarly on a Four Corners programme here in Oz recently. But even in an attenuated form such as this, the claim is antithetical to the teaching of Christ. I’d argue for that in more detail but I suspect you don’t need convincing.


quote:
Gracie:

Actually you'll notice that you've quoted what I think.

Yes. I quoted it because it's what I think, and I assumed because you said it that you thought it too. So it demonstrated that we were agreeing that following Jesus will involve both suffering and blessing.

quote:
Gracie:
I was summarising your position from your posts way up on page 2 where you say that suffering is a necessary entailment of the gospel and will characterise the life of the believer. No talk about blessing there.

There again maybe you've changed your mind since then, and haven't thought to say so.

Yes, I still believe what I said earlier about suffering being a necessary entailment of the gospel, and I haven’t changed my mind either. But why do you think that suffering and blessing are mutually exclusive? Jesus didn’t when he said

quote:
originally posted by the Lord Jesus:
Matt. 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Nor indeed did Jesus assume that if you missed out on prosperity you were missing out on blessing:

quote:
originally posted by the Lord Jesus:
How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ... Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

<snip>

Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

(Mark 10:23-31)


I mean really, how can you read words like this and think you can get prosperity gospel out of the Bible, much less claim that it is genuinely evangelical? But they also demonstrate that suffering and blessing are in no way opposed to each other. Did you think that they were?

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

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
/Tangent/Thanks for the link, Gordon - we are to pick 4 supplemental books from an extensive list, and this one is on it, so recommendations are helpful - and it sounds like it's divided in more or less the way the class is formatted.

You said:
quote:
I mean really, how can you read words like this and think you can get prosperity gospel out of the Bible, much less claim that it is genuinely evangelical?
Not to mention that the prosperity gospel more or less ignores huge chunks of the early church narratives as found in Acts. They focus on the miraculous healings, but more or less turn a blind eye to Stephen. They will talk about the angel freeing Peter from prison, but neglect to mention that James is put to the sword. In the same chapter, two supremely faithful men, one miraculously saved by divine intervention, the other gets his head chopped off. How does a prosperity "name it and claim it" gospel even begin to address this dichotomy?

That might be a fun Heaven thread - "Sermons You Won't Hear from a Prosperity Preacher." I bet Simon Magus isn't a hot topic.

--------------------
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
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 Sienna:
That might be a fun Heaven thread - "Sermons You Won't Hear from a Prosperity Preacher." I bet Simon Magus isn't a hot topic.

Indeed*. But I can't help restating my contention that you are equally if not more likely to hear a sermon on the cross in a Pentecostal church than in most other evangelical circles these days.

I was in a Pentecostal church last Sunday and heard a baptismal testimony that detailed the cross and PSA in no uncertain terms.

*Perhaps the thread could be broadened to allow people to state both a category of preacher and a passage? Go on, do it!

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870

 - Posted      Profile for Gracie   Email Gracie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The claim and the reality can be mismatched…
But as I understand it, prosperity gospel implies or states directly that if you believe the gospel (and in some cases, give generously to the church) you will be blessed materially. Such teaching can be found in Brian Houston’s book You need more money, and I heard him imply similarly on a Four Corners programme here in Oz recently. But even in an attenuated form such as this, the claim is antithetical to the teaching of Christ. I’d argue for that in more detail but I suspect you don’t need convincing.

Well I've heard it taught that if you tithe and/or give generously to the church you will be blessed materially, but I've never seen this as an article of faith. I've never heard it taught either that believing in the gospel will necessarily lead to material blessing. Though I haven't read Brian Houston's book and I don't think doing so would be a wise use of my time and money.

quote:


So it demonstrated that we were agreeing that following Jesus will involve both suffering and blessing.

Except that I would still insist on it being persecution and not just any old suffering. And I still think that there's an important difference.

quote:

But why do you think that suffering and blessing are mutually exclusive? Jesus didn’t when he said

quote:
originally posted by the Lord Jesus:
Matt. 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


But you see here, in this Gospel account, Jesus is speaking specifically about persecution not about any old suffering. I certainly don't think persecution and blessing are mutually exclusive. I never said that I thought that blessing and suffering were mutually exclusive either. I think most Christians will suffer in this life, because they are human beings. However Jesus actually promised that those who would lead godly lives would be persecuted. I don't think he actually promised anything either way about suffering.

Nor indeed did Jesus assume that if you missed out on prosperity you were missing out on blessing:

quote:
originally posted by the Lord Jesus:
How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ... Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

<snip>

Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first. (Mark 10:23-31)

Well I'm glad you quoted that last verse, because here Jesus is specifically promising material blessing now in this time with persecutions.

The first one doesn't say anything at all about prosperity or otherwise after believing, in my opinion.

quote:

I mean really, how can you read words like this and think you can get prosperity gospel out of the Bible, much less claim that it is genuinely evangelical?

I've never said that these doctrines are evangelical. What I have said is that I think it is possible for a person to be evangelical whilst mistakenly thinking these doctrines are biblical.

[ 22. September 2005, 12:18: Message edited by: Gracie ]

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