David (Palmer )could you please edit out blah , blah..that did not eminate from me.
Robert ian,
I have corrected blah blah to etc, etc - I trust that satisfies you.
Now perhaps you might go back and have a go at responding thoughtfully to some of the points I was (and others have been) asking/putting to you, rather than just lobbing in grenades and generally obfuscating
I also think you arrogate things to the Roman Catholic Church that you are not entitled to do:
a) things that we Protestants have never rejected eg the Western doctrine of the Trinity, the Chalcedon formulation for the two natures of our Lord, and
b) things that properly belong to the Eastern Orthodox - here is an example from your post #25.
Timbo, the Catholic church predates its establishment in Rome..for some time it was head quartered in Jerusalem… from Judaea, from whence went out the Gospel.
This is historically incorrect and an insult to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Somewhere along the line it would be good to say what Catholics and Protestants have in common - in my opinion the things in common far outweigh the things we disagree on (and I say that without in any way wishing to downplay the differences). So, even as we explore differences, why can’t we acknowledge all those wonderful truths about the triune God who acts with such grace and mercy toward us that we do hold in common, whether Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox?
The trouble is David that you accept the Christological decisions, but ignore the other evidence from the Councils that produced them.
For instance at Chalcedon, “Peter has spoken through Leo”....proclaimed by the attending bishops.
Nicea.. precedence given to the Legate of the Bishop of Rome.
Yes we do have doctrines in common...but the differences are very serious. Sometimes the things we hold in common are very close...as with the Orthodox..but even they are seriously at odds with historic Christianity with their acceptance of re-marriage after divoirce ( up to two times), changed view on contraception etc.
Bob Cameron..wht is it the body of Christ and not the soul of Christ..if the invisible Church is the set pattern? Sorry , but a city set on a hill can not be hid, or the lampstand or a house built on a rock.
Dan can not show me a church holding the criteria of Artocle 19..as there is non prior to the 16th century.....the churches that existed whether they be the Catholic Church or schismatic offshoots all belived in distinctively sacerdotal doctrines.
I’m rather disapoointed in Dan! I shall be writing on his report, “ Must try harder!”
I wonder how Dean Jensen’s analysis compares? I hope I am not simply covering ground already covered, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat some things.
A small excerpt (its best to read the entire link, and not simply pot shot at this quote. It gives some more detailed info)
The term “Evangelicalism” is a wide-reaching definitional “canopy” that covers a diverse number of Protestant groups. The term originates in the Greek word evangelion, meaning “the good news,” or, more commonly, the “gospel.” During the Reformation, Martin Luther adapted the Greek term, dubbing his breakaway movement the evangelische kirke, or “evangelical church"-a name still generally applied to the Lutheran Church in Germany.
In the English-speaking world, however, the modern usage usually connotes the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
There are three senses in which the term “evangelical” is used today as we enter the 21st-century. The first is to see as “evangelical” all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases.
British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
1: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
2: activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
3: biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and
4: crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Just for the record, I will not be responding anymore to Robert ian Williams and I suggrest others should consider the worthwhileness of continuing to engage with someone all over the shop, failing to respond to questions, etc, etc.
I think that any fair minded person who reads the thread will see that I did attempt to answer the questions ,albeit not as thoroghly and brilliantly as Donna.
As Oscar Wilde ( convert to the Catholic Church on his death bed )said , “ there is one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about”
British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
1: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
2: activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
3: biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and
4: crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
The problem, Ken, is that the Catholic Church would also agree with these perogatives. Not to mention that there are countless different Protestant groups with profoundly different understandings of the Bible that would regard themselves as “Bible-believing”. It seems then, that the term “evangelical” is merely an assertion that one follows the Bible (whether or not they do) and that one possesses the historical gospel (whether or not they do). In short, it is an aspirational marketing term that says more about what evangelicals believe about themselves, than what they believe about the Bible or the gospel.
British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
1: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
2: activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
3: biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and
4: crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
.... the Catholic Church would also agree with these perogatives.
(the term evangelicalism) is an aspirational marketing term that says more about what evangelicals believe about themselves, than what they believe about the Bible or the gospel.
Do I detect a degree of convergence, commanilty here? Good, at last!
Without denying Joshua the right to give his account of evangelicalism, I would like to point out the term came into general use in the 18th Century, not particularly as a marketing tool, but as a name for the party in the Church of England that stayed anglican rather than Methodist. However the 18th Century evangelical revival touched all Protestant denominations.
As an ‘evangelical’, what I believe has everything to do with the gospel and what the Bible teaches.
The problem with the term ‘evangelical’ is that everyone now uses it, even Catholics for all I know, so that open theists, prosperity gospel types, emerging church types, JIm Wallis evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, etc, etc.
So some us end up not using the word at all or coupling it with another word. I suspect most, or at least a good few on this forum are happier with “evangelical and reformed” confessional Christian”, even “Calvinist.
The problem with the term ‘evangelical’ is that everyone now uses it, even Catholics for all I know, so that open theists, prosperity gospel types, emerging church types, JIm Wallis evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, etc, etc.
Not to mention those people who would begrudge other people using the title of “evangelical”.
Which is more or less my point. All meaning in the term has become devalued. These days even Calvinists claim to be evangelical.
The problem, Ken, is that the Catholic Church would also agree with these perogatives. Not to mention that there are countless different Protestant groups with profoundly different understandings of the Bible that would regard themselves as “Bible-believing”. It seems then, that the term “evangelical” is merely an assertion that one follows the Bible (whether or not they do) and that one possesses the historical gospel (whether or not they do). In short, it is an aspirational marketing term that says more about what evangelicals believe about themselves, than what they believe about the Bible or the gospel.
Hi Joshua
I can’t agree with your analysis, and not only on the historical grounds that David P has pointed out. With due to Philip Jensen’s article, it seems to me that when your average Sydney Anglican or person of like mind uses the word evangelical, it is a statement about authority. That is, when I say I am an evangelical I am saying that the Bible is my ultimate authority in all matters of faith and life. [Interestingly, for those lovers of words among us, this is an example where the meaning of a word has now moved a considerable distance from its etymology.]
Now I will concede your point this far: many now use the word evangelical to mean other things. In some cases they are no doubt wanting to align themselves with those who hold the view that I am espousing, and using the same label is a way of doing so. With this in mind, as David has said, some of us are now qualifying the label, or rejecting it completely. I know of one senior minister in a large evangelical church in the USA who simply ignores it when people tell him they are an evangelical - until he gets to know them and finds out for himself! Some will therefore say, like you, that the label has outlived its usefulness. Others, like PDJ, will seek to reclaim it. So far I’m with Philip, but the day may come when I jettison the term - at least in day to day conversation.
Now Joshua, I’m sure you will admit that the first people to call themselves evangelicals were Calvinists. Leastways, I think so.
And certainly some of the most passionate evangelists are Calvinists, including Mr Flavour-of-the-month Driscoll, John Piper, Don Carson, and Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and Charles Simeon [despite his protestations] and of course Charles Spurgeon.
Their understanding of Calvinism was quite different from what you understand by it, though.
Evangelicalsism is so elastic as to what is heresy and what is truth. For instance many evangelicals who believe in infant baptism will happily go along with those who reject it as an early church corruption.
Read Martyn LLoyd-Jones, “ What is an Evangelical” ..he says we must not divide over secondary issues ,and immediately consigns baptism a solemn command of our Lord to a secondary position.”
Dan can not show me a church holding the criteria of Artocle 19..as there is non prior to the 16th century.....the churches that existed whether they be the Catholic Church or schismatic offshoots all belived in distinctively sacerdotal doctrines.
I’m rather disapoointed in Dan! I shall be writing on his report, “ Must try harder!”
Now I see what your mysterious PM was about.
I don’t remember referring to Article XIX, but I did mention XX.
Still curious about this idea that the Waldensians weren’t evangelical - they weren’t unitarians either, so why were they persecuted? How would they best be described in today’s categories?
Anyway I’m not a historian so it’s no good asking me for information of this kind. That doesn’t concern me as in any event such an argument proceeds from a false foundation. The big question is over the perspicuity of Scripture, which RCs prefer to deny by reference to intra-Protestant differences rather than by a demonstration from first principles.
Some time ago Robert referred me to the ‘Petrine’ texts (but curiously not Galatians 2 or Peter’s post-Pentecostal learning curve re. Cornelius - if Peter was the leader and ‘confirmer of the brethren’ why was Paul often ahead of the game?), but the appeal is meaningless if they, at least, are not tolerably perspicuous! What kind of logic inheres to an argument that starts by assuming something in order to establish something else which is then used to oppose the starting principle?!
Anyway if we can read those texts with confidence in their perspicuity, why not others having to do more directly with salvation and with morals? Why would God leave more vital issues less clearly stated in Scripture than less crucial ones? To me it’s the camel’s nose in the Roman tent.
I investigated the Waldensians as they are adopted by many groups as their spititual ancestors.
Adopted by the Calvinists in the sixteenth century, they previously belived in a variety of heterodox concepts. They taught celibacy of their pastors, practiced auricular confession and they had no concept of justification by faith alone.....begun in the 12th century they were Catholic in many of their views....and were initially a para-church grouping.
Far from being the camels nose in the Roman tent..the Scriptures show that they cannot be read without real knpwledge of their setting and the infallible teaching Church commissioned to validate and promote them.Otherwise you have the pathetic position of not being able to agree on what our Lord means in his very commandments.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
