tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6304577717610447557..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: On Gregg Allison’s “Roman Catholicism: An Evangelical Assessment”: Responding to Objections on “Exactly What is Evangelicalism?”Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57568592257152554322015-02-05T12:53:25.775-05:002015-02-05T12:53:25.775-05:00Ted, to say "within" the mainstream is n...Ted, to say "within" the mainstream is not to say "totally representative of" the mainstream. Allison says that evangelicalism, this "mainstream" that we are talking about is "a massive broad-tent movement that encompasses ..." That is not a presumptuous description. Nor is it a sin to be a subset. He is totally honest about where he fits within that -- I think you are reaching when you say his presentation is dishonest. John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85378691008111446232015-02-05T12:04:15.178-05:002015-02-05T12:04:15.178-05:00Yup.Yup.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05323613617701622125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25225208328640673012015-02-04T13:47:35.307-05:002015-02-04T13:47:35.307-05:00The same thing can be said for Roman Catholics or ...The same thing can be said for Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2034380198842682952015-02-04T12:19:59.025-05:002015-02-04T12:19:59.025-05:00IOW, John, to quote Steve Hays, your mainstream ev...IOW, John, to quote Steve Hays, your mainstream evangelicalism<br /><br />"reduces to a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of professing Christians"<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/01/bubble-boy-catholicity.html<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05323613617701622125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41864442411109622462015-02-03T09:13:05.354-05:002015-02-03T09:13:05.354-05:00John, when you say,
" you think he's wi...John, when you say, <br /><br />" you think he's within the mainstream of evangelicalism, while Allison is not" <br /><br />you presume to know what that mainstream of evangelicalism is. But do you?<br /><br />How many millions of souls are a part of evangelicalism, but are Modalists? A lot, lot more than Reformed Baptists, like Allison. <br /><br />How many more millions of evangelicals believe the Bible insufficient and so listen to God in verbal prophecy, tongues, words form God, etc - i.e., charismaticism and word-faith theology - world-wide? Allison rejects that too.<br /><br />The numbers far, far outweigh those who embrace Allisons view of evangelicalism, and we're not even touching Bloesh and his squishy theology which represents the evangelicalism of Hybel's Willow Creek and the church growth movement in America (were you not watching the past 3 decades)?<br /><br />How is Allison in the mainstream of evangelicalism when others have the word Evangelical in their very name? ELCA is not Allison's evangelicalism (or yours) but has 4M baptized adherents. How can Allison's evangelicalism be more evangelical than they are when it is their very name?<br /><br />I'm guessing you want to go historical and make the case that the theological origins of evangelicalism are essentially the soteriology of Allison. Really? How close do you think he is to the Arminianism of Wesley, one of evangelicalism's two founders? Or his followers? <br /><br />It just isn't honest, John. It's a narrative that doesn't stand up to reality. You've got to take off the colored glasses and see that Christians don't identify by evangelicalism, but by the church they go to on Sunday. No matter what they say. That is who they are. Ecclesiology matters, and to judge the RCC up by a small slice of evangelical commitments is like judging the government of Russia by how you and your friends succeed at Assasin's Creed. <br /><br />Then, to call that small slice the mainstream is simply wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05323613617701622125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60565962138524047832015-02-02T11:49:46.461-05:002015-02-02T11:49:46.461-05:00Hi Ted, thanks for your comments here. I probably ...Hi Ted, thanks for your comments here. I probably ended that a little too abruptly. <br /><br />Thanks also for the link on Bloesch. However, I'm not sure why, based on that link, you think he's within the mainstream of evangelicalism, while Allison is not. John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79809197391813678172015-02-02T10:45:25.445-05:002015-02-02T10:45:25.445-05:00And what you write about Bryan and his requirement...And what you write about Bryan and his requirement that one address him from the perspective of his own theological commitments is exactly correct.<br /><br />Several times I've told him in comments at his web site CtC that for me to adopt and argue from a perspective that denies that Scripture is the only source of revelation and authority is sin, since it depends upon the promise of Jesus Christ to the apostles in John 16:12-13. Those comments usually don't make it up, but get deleted.<br /><br />I really wouldn't want to be in his shoes, always trying to get people to not trust in Scripture as Christ presents it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05323613617701622125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65436654460827371012015-02-02T10:21:12.962-05:002015-02-02T10:21:12.962-05:00Thanks John.
You wrote:
"Allison’s viewpoin...Thanks John.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"Allison’s viewpoint is neither dishonest, nor does it fall outside of what is commonly held to be “evangelical."<br /><br />That his viewpoint was dishonest was never my point. I said he was dishonest as to the source of his critique, as you quoted me above:<br /><br />“He just isn't being honest as to its source. The source of his doctrine, or his ‘pou sto’ isn't evangelicalism.”<br /><br />His source is a mixture of Reformed and Baptistic theologians, each with differing ecclesiological commitments, not "evangelicalism." That, and his deep interaction with Scripture from those specific traditions over several decades of regenerated life in Christ, is his source. So while he makes a necessary caveat:<br /><br />"it is not possible to define and present one evangelical theology; evangelical theologies— plural— are the reality"<br /><br />he actually just takes his own ecclesiastical position and calls it evangelicalism - which it isn't.<br /><br />As for Bloesch, read this:<br /><br />https://books.google.com/books?id=MBtFlW8vxuwC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=donald+bloesch+inerrancy&source=bl&ots=5vC4j62aD8&sig=z4mEIY8itoUu5qs56bV1jZdXhBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cJPPVL64M4e9yQTNioGIAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=donald%20bloesch%20inerrancy&f=falseAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05323613617701622125noreply@blogger.com