is history bunk?
My very intelligent self and my truly very intelligent wife were just talking about something that i would like all of you fundamentalist evangelicals out there to answer for me. here goes: what do you make of the church history that surrounds and bolsters your faith if you would not readliy consider Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Coptic Christians... Christians? i've read evangelical literature that excludes these different branches of the church in their count of "Christians" in certain nations. what of the early Church fathers? are they not considered Christians due to the fact that the Protestant Reformation simply hadn't happened yet?(there, i posted!)
posted by Paul Johnson | 10:52 PM
16 Comments:
Well, I guess the real question (debate) is what is a "Christian"? What beliefs are essential for a group to believe (or not believe) for them to be considered "Christian"?
We can then see if Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic Christians (or anyone else) fit that definition.
right do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God sent to invade this earth and redeem His rebellious fallen creation? do they seek to live lives of holiness in order to bring about the Kingdom of God on this earth?
i would say yes.
If I answer, does that mean that I am a fundamentalist evangelical?
I sure look like one with this cowboy hat.
This isn't really a comment, but another question. What is the difference (if there is any) between proselytizing and evangelizing? And does that have any bearing on the topic of Paul's post?
According to Merriam-Webster,
to proselytize is: to induce someone to convert to one's faith.
To evangelize is: to preach the gospel to; or to convert to Christianity.
In other words, one is non-specific in the way in which you convince someone to convert, nor is it specific to a given religion/faith; while the other is specific in the way in which you convince (preaching the gospel) someone to convert, as well as specific to a given religion/faith, namely Christendom.
I'm not sure if it has bearing on paul's post or not. What were you implying?
Its a good question (Paul's not Erica's). What is the minimum threshhold of belief one must adopt to consider one's self a Christian? Any idea's? I am thinking the list is alot shorter than many of us realize.
Example: Must one accept the inerrancy of Scripture to be a Christian? or even the authority of Scripture?
or even that Jesus is Lord?
D'oh!
I think I found the threshold.
I am deeply offended, anonymous.
But back to the question I had before - based on MW's definition of proselytizing and evangelizing, aren’t “fundamentalist evangelicals” merely proselytizing and not evangelizing when they try to convert Roman Catholics? In other words, their intent can’t be to “preach the gospel” (evangelize) to a group of people who already believe the gospel to be true. That would be pointless.
Speaking of pointless, I don’t remember what this had to do with Paul’s post.
Erica: It depends on how narrow you understand the gospel. If you believe that "believeing the gospel" means adopting all the tenets of the western branch of American REformed Presby-Lutheranism, then any other group outside of that needs to be, in their view, "evangelized."
Which leads back to my earlier question...and Paul's: Are they right?
What is the threshold of belief?
Threshold: I think this is one reason the creeds were written.
So, how about, say, the Nicene Creed?
Or does even this document narrow the doorway too much?
Creeds are valuable but they were written, especially ones like the Nicene Creed, not as stand alone documents but in opposition to some force or movement. If a modern creed were written, no doubt it would bear the marks of reaction to pomo and emergent stuff.
The Apostle's Creed seems a more basic distillation of essential core beliefs. It makes what actually happened and/or will happen the primary content of belief, rather than focusing on the various mechanisms whereby we think these things take place.
Would you agree?
I agree with your first statement.
However, I see very little difference between the two creeds, and the doctrines they affirm, but I'll take your word for it.
So I guess the question is, can you remove/oppose truth claims from [even] the Apostle's Creed and be left with orthodoxy?
I Corinthians 15:
"1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."
The following gospel is the one that saves: "...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..."
Therefore, as DrewDog pointed out, Jesus is Lord.
Adding requirements to the gospel (circumcision, rituals, etc.) or removing requirements from the gospel (denying Christ as Lord, denying resurrection) both lead to another gospel which is no gospel at all.
How does this sound?
If you want it narrower....how about the gospel Jesus himself preached. Mark 1.
1. The time is fulfilled
2. The kingdom of God is at hand
3. Repent and believe in the GOSPEL.
How does that work?
so whoever believes/lives-out those most basic tenents could be called a Christian.
check it out this could very well answer all of our questions! http://larknews.com/guide/what.html
i am buying it!
Post a Comment
<< Home