To: Alex Murphy
Balmer complains that evangelicals refuse to read Paul's "apparent condemnations of homosexuality" as rooted in, and "arguably" limited to, "the historical and social circumstances of the first century." This guy is not an evangelical. He's a theological liberal modernist who is gonna have a lot to answer for.
2 posted on
08/17/2006 5:59:02 AM PDT by
Frumanchu
(http://frumanchu.blogspot.com)
To: Alex Murphy
Sounds to me like we are ready for the next question: "Is the Pope an Evangelical, or What?"
5 posted on
08/17/2006 7:10:22 AM PDT by
muawiyah
To: Alex Murphy
"Does Christianity have social ramifications?"
______________________________
It better or the world is lost.
The forces of darkness are overwhelming the institutions of faith with this attitude of no accountability.
7 posted on
08/17/2006 8:05:30 AM PDT by
wmfights
(Psalm : 27)
To: Alex Murphy
I always thought people refered to themselves as "Evangelical Christians" so they would not have to use the term "Fundamentalist".
16 posted on
08/17/2006 12:15:06 PM PDT by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from...Ann Coulter)
To: Alex Murphy
"Evangelicalism needs to be relinquished as a religious identity because it does not exist. In fact, it is the wax nose of the twentieth-century American Protestantism ... .Despite the vast amounts of energy and resources expended on the topic, and notwithstanding the ever growing volume of literature on the movement, evangelicalism is little more than a construction." (DG Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism)
18 posted on
08/17/2006 1:00:44 PM PDT by
topcat54
To: Alex Murphy
Jack Rogers is as much a "theologian" as Balmer is an "evangelical."
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson