C
Church_Militant
Guest
No problem.
- Status
No problem.
H
Harpazo
Guest
My question is, who has the authority to write this and then back it up? And what happens to those Evangelicals that reject some of the items?
Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew
Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew
S
surfinpure
Guest
"Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice. "
Is this not Sola Scriptura? Definitely don’t agree with that.
Is this not Sola Scriptura? Definitely don’t agree with that.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
. "
Is this not Sola Scriptura? Definitely don’t agree with that.Yeah, that’s it…big as life and twice as ugly.
Usually, though there is some discussion as to how they define that.
Jimmy Akin has a excellent short article on this called,
MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
S
surfinpure
Guest
Excellent article – thanks!
D
Della
Guest
I’m with you. :yup:
What I’d like to know is where did Jesus ever express “his attitude toward the…supreme authority of the Bible”? That’s not even biblical. :tsktsk:
J
James1982
Guest
I too wonder about the authority aspect of this.
One of the major arguments many denominations under the Evangelical umbrella have against Rome is that centralized authority is not necessary above the pastoral level to follow the Word properly and to interpret scriptures correctly. In many denominations, matters of doctrine are voted on by pastoral electors, who have been led individually by the Holy Spirit to the correct interpretation. There may be a small group heading up the synod, but with little actual authority to issue manifestos of belief short of the pastors getting together and voting on doctrine.
If there is a central authority issuing things like this- doesn’t that defeat the point? At that level, you might as well have a magisterium and Papacy- at least they claim their authority by biblical/historical evidence; they are not just random committees making up dogma.
IMO, it really undercuts the idea that the Holy Spirit moves individuals locally at the pastoral level to the truth, and props up the idea that the Church must have some central authority to define broad dogmatic issues. And if there’s a central authority, the idea of apostolic succession is paramount, because otherwise you just have a random committee issuing edicts with no biblical or historical basis for doing so.
I sometimes wonder if it’s because of things like this that the idea of strict apostolic succession came out of the early church. It just seems like a committee like this is ripe for theological abuse, especially one that claims to be inter-denominational among all Evangelicals.
Just kind of troubling to me, seeing this kind of stuff, even if the theology of it is pretty vanilla protestant ideas.
One of the major arguments many denominations under the Evangelical umbrella have against Rome is that centralized authority is not necessary above the pastoral level to follow the Word properly and to interpret scriptures correctly. In many denominations, matters of doctrine are voted on by pastoral electors, who have been led individually by the Holy Spirit to the correct interpretation. There may be a small group heading up the synod, but with little actual authority to issue manifestos of belief short of the pastors getting together and voting on doctrine.
If there is a central authority issuing things like this- doesn’t that defeat the point? At that level, you might as well have a magisterium and Papacy- at least they claim their authority by biblical/historical evidence; they are not just random committees making up dogma.
IMO, it really undercuts the idea that the Holy Spirit moves individuals locally at the pastoral level to the truth, and props up the idea that the Church must have some central authority to define broad dogmatic issues. And if there’s a central authority, the idea of apostolic succession is paramount, because otherwise you just have a random committee issuing edicts with no biblical or historical basis for doing so.
I sometimes wonder if it’s because of things like this that the idea of strict apostolic succession came out of the early church. It just seems like a committee like this is ripe for theological abuse, especially one that claims to be inter-denominational among all Evangelicals.
Just kind of troubling to me, seeing this kind of stuff, even if the theology of it is pretty vanilla protestant ideas.
S
surfinpure
Guest
This came in the newsletter from the Free Market Foundation:
be accredited with a positive call for Christians to be concerned with issues of justice and the poor, unfortunately due to the publicly critical way it is written, any positive message might fall on deaf ears while a negative message is trumpeted. Evangelical leaders like Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Free Market’s Kelly Shackelford and Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land who did not sign onto the report have all supported speaking truth with love to American culture and informing the church and government on ways to enforce freedoms that open doors to the Gospel in our society. Having faith in the world takes wisdom and discernment, but not a refusal to stand. Instead of confronting fellow brothers and sisters directly with political concerns, sponsors of the “Evangelical Manifesto” have chosen to use media-hype and the limelight to confess errors. This unfortunately caters to our culture’s hostility towards Christianity, is not the way to rally the church together, and is being used by the media to try to discourage believers.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Two comments:
How can this be an “Evangelical Manifesto” when a significant wing of evangelicals have not signed off on it. From what I have read, this manifesto is supported by socially and politically moderates to liberals, but it is not supported by social conservatives.
If my quick read of the document is correct, it seems to me that the social liberals and moderates are doing the same thing that I have criticized the Christian right for doing. That would be upholding a false (imho) moral equivalency.
If I did not believe the Christian Coalition when they (through their scorecards) assigned equal weight to the balanced budget amendment and killing innocent unborn human life, I am also not going to believe of these folks when they assign moral equivalency to killing innocent unborn human life and stopping global warming.
How can this be an “Evangelical Manifesto” when a significant wing of evangelicals have not signed off on it. From what I have read, this manifesto is supported by socially and politically moderates to liberals, but it is not supported by social conservatives.
If my quick read of the document is correct, it seems to me that the social liberals and moderates are doing the same thing that I have criticized the Christian right for doing. That would be upholding a false (imho) moral equivalency.
If I did not believe the Christian Coalition when they (through their scorecards) assigned equal weight to the balanced budget amendment and killing innocent unborn human life, I am also not going to believe of these folks when they assign moral equivalency to killing innocent unborn human life and stopping global warming.
M
mmmcounts
Guest
“Mature believers” who, over the course of time, have demonstrated that they “have the mind of Christ” in the sense that these phrases are used in 1 Corinthians 2.
Why would you be an Evangelical if you rejected the core beliefs of Evangelicals? The situation would probably be about the same as that of a hardcore pacifist with a membership in the NRA. They still get some of the mail, but they won’t show up for any of the get-togethers. Michael Moore is a good example of that exact situation. Of course, it all depends on the exact situation. I’m sure you could find out about some real-life examples if you do a little fishing.
- Status