Posted on 09/26/2011 4:56:20 PM PDT by rhema
Who is and is not an evangelical? With whom should evangelicals cooperate in gospel efforts, and with whom not? Which theological expressions are truly evangelical, and which are beyond the pale?
These questions are central to the ongoing crisis of evangelical identity. In 1989, Carl F. H. Henry spoke to the urgency of answering these questions:
“The term ‘evangelical’ has taken on conflicting nuances in the twentieth century. Wittingly or unwittingly, evangelical constituencies, no less than their critics, have contributed to this confusion and misunderstanding. Nothing could be more timely, therefore, than to define what is primary and what is secondary in personifying an evangelical Christian.”
Just a year after Henry offered those words, Robert Brow called for a complete transformation of evangelical theology — and did so within the pages of Christianity Today, the flagship periodical once edited by both Carl Henry and Kenneth Kantzer. Brow’s manifesto was a clarion call to abandon the Augustinian-Reformation model in favor of a new Arminian and postmodern model. Brow declared that the intellectual context of postmodernity made such an exchange necessary. He argued that doctrines such as the omnipotence, omniscience, and sovereignty of God would have to be radically reinterpreted in light of current thinking. He explicitly rejected doctrines such as the substitutionary atonement, a penal understanding of the cross, forensic justification, and imputed righteousness. With remarkable boldness, he called for the rejection of the traditional doctrine of hell, and he denied both a dual destiny after judgment and the exclusivity of the Gospel. As he made these demands, he informed his readers of the inevitability of an evangelical “megashift” because, “a whole generation of young people has breathed this air.”
(Excerpt) Read more at albertmohler.com ...
Exactly what I wanted to post when I first read the title. Way to go!
To which I say thank God.
Instead of getting caught up in trying to figure out how many angels can stand on the head of a pin I am happy to stick with the simple explanation that an Evangelical Christian is a Born Again Christian that proclaims The Gospel to the lost and believes the 5 Solas.
If I'm not mistaken the London Baptist of Faith confession has been changed. Haven't the more objectionable parts concerning the Pope and the RCC been altered?
Look at who the churches are that are out trying to evangelize the lost. South America is being evangelized by the Pentecostals and Baptists. The House Church movement in China is the same thing. Who is aggressively trying to reach the lost in the middle east and Africa? The old European Churches have fossilized on their councils and confessions.
The churches that are just not very "sophisticated" are the ones that are preaching The Gospel to the world.
This may help define it, and contrast it with the institutionalized church, though that is where its largely heading: http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
Great information.
Question 2 -- "infallibility" is of a person, not a book. The Bible is "inerrant" in the sense that it contains no errors. "Infallibility" is where someONE makes a decision and does so with no errors. The Bible has not errors and hence is inerrant. That is what all Christians believe. not just Evangelicals
you are correct that one should not oversimplify our beliefs.
Different non-Catholic groups built on top of this foundation in different ways.
the differences of opinion is why the councils with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did not result in any common points of faith.
This is why the different belief systems and this is what we see later on in the Baptist confession of faith and then the various Adventists etc. confessions in the 1800s.
that was the eventual destination.
First remove one piece then another, finally it is Unitarian Universalism.
what of those who accept 3 out of 5 solas? Many baptists do that. And even oneness pentecostals say they are Born-Again. Are they evangelical too? An oversimplified description becomes a catch-all and does not really indicate what one beliefs.
So the Catholic Church is to be faulted for approving of Cassian's thinking, and for not approving of it; and erred by embracing Augustine, and by not embracing him.
And the Church is quite wrong for calling Augustine a Father of the Church, and not even putting St. John Cassian on the calendar. Or was it t'other way around? (Though I personally have a special appreciation for Cassian, being quite attached to St. Benedict. I took "Benedicta" as my Confirmation name. So, guilty as charged.)
As well as guilty for having so darn much systematic theology, and for not having any at all.
Now I retire to thew garden to pick some turnips, of which I Catholicly cook the roots and my Orthodox husband may be inspired to cook the greens.
There must be a metaphor there somwhere...
MRs. D — you are correct, Semipelagianism was condemned in the local Council of Orange. Cassian is still a saint as there’s still dispute over what he exactly thought or did not teach.
Look at who the churches are that are out trying to evangelize the lost.
"Don't those Sabelleans do good work!"
While no doubt early Christians believe in the importances of baptism, it is incorrect to say that the Church "from day one" has always taught a consistent doctrine of baptism. Augustine wrote a discussion on whether heretics could indeed baptize other heretics. And then there is his writings that the purpose of baptist was obsured at best. Augustine writes about how they were confused as to what baptism truly meant. At first they thought that once you were baptized you had to live a perfect life. Well, ten seconds after being baptized they discovered that wasn't going to work. Then they thought they would wait until the last possible moment to be baptized. So as someone was taking their dying breath, off they would run to fetch some water. Trouble is, as Augustine points out, they frequently could not run fast enough. Finally the decided baptism was perhaps a "door".
In fairness, Augustine's writings on baptism support the Catholic position. But what Augustine's writings exposes is that there was confusion in the early church about the true meaning of baptism and the administration of baptism. Also, in parallel with the Church of Rome were the Baptists who held their own views of baptism.
To say that there was a consistent, logical theology on the purpose and method of baptism is simply not so. If you really want a "classical Christian tradition" of baptism, you need only ask the Baptist who have (for the most part) held a constitent view from the beginning of Christ while the Catholics were fumbling around.
I've invited wmfights here because he is more versed in the views of baptism.
I wouldn't be too excited about that. It's simply a dumbing down of the gospel. No different then our education system. I can't tell you how much I looked for substantive theology without finding it. It's a disgrace when you have to go back to writing that is over 300 years old to find good hard systematic theology.
If I'm not mistaken the London Baptist of Faith confession has been changed.
I suspect so. I started using the 1644 version but chose Spurgeon's version instead. Over the course of time the "offensive" parts are changed. Heck, I suspect they'll even do that with the Bible someday. Oops...they have.
Here is a perfect example of why elevating confessions, councils and individuals views is such a terrible mistake. Scripture is our source and the idea that grace can be bestowed by baptism, or a means of grace, flys in the face of Scripture. In every instance where baptism is described it follows repentance, or faith, of an adult.
The Holy Spirit indwells a believer because of their Faith Alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.