For Christians-Evangelicalism, what's your take on it?

[Villager]

The bible contains errors.

Where, please?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

First of all, we're not talking about "the mainstream" here. We're talking about evangelicalism, which tends to treat the texts literalistically. If the texts are treated thus, there are many inconsistencies and statements that are not corroborated by science and history.

Second, even the allegorical nature of Genesis is scientifically erroneous. Most of those who argue for inerrancy will try to make the stories jive with science.

The teachers I know teach that Genesis is saying that God created the universe in seven epochs not literally seven days.

 

[sojourner]

The teachers I know teach that Genesis is saying that God created the universe in seven epochs not literally seven days.

Even so, the sky is not a rigid dome, as the text tells us, nor is there water in space above the sky, as the texts tell us.

 

[sojourner]

Where, please?

see #134

 

[Villager]

Even so, the sky is not a rigid dome, as the text tells us, nor is there water in space above the sky, as the texts tell us.

Us?

The texts are the business of those who hold them inerrant, and no-one else.

 

[Villager]

see #134

That's yet another irrelevant waste of time.

$1000 fine.

 

[sojourner]

Us?

The texts are the business of those who hold them inerrant, and no-one else.

Whose business were they for the first 1500 years of the church's existence?

 

[sojourner]

That's yet another irrelevant waste of time.

$1000 fine.

In what way? That's what the text says. The text is in error.
To refuse to deal with the error is to refuse to see the elephant standing in the middle of the living room, and thus is poor exegesis.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Even so, the sky is not a rigid dome, as the text tells us, nor is there water in space above the sky, as the texts tell us.

Is the goal of Genesis really to give a scientific account of how the universe was created? I think the answer is no. How can Genesis fail at something it wasn't attempting to do in the first place?

 

[sojourner]

Is the goal of Genesis really to give a scientific account of how the universe was created? I think the answer is no. How can Genesis fail at something it wasn't attempting to do in the first place?

From a literalistic POV, it does represent an error.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

From a literalistic POV, it does represent an error.

Doesn't the genre determine whether or not reading a work from a literalistic POV is appropriate?

 

[sojourner]

Doesn't the genre determine whether or not reading a work from a literalistic POV is appropriate?

Of course. That's my beef. Most evangelicals I've come into contact with read the whole thing literalistically. Since the thread is about my take on evangelicalism, and since most evangelicals I know do this, I mentioned it here as part of my take. If you're an evangelical and you don't do this, bully for you! However, you are not representative of the evangelicals I know.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Of course. That's my beef. Most evangelicals I've come into contact with read the whole thing literalistically. Since the thread is about my take on evangelicalism, and since most evangelicals I know do this, I mentioned it here as part of my take. If you're an evangelical and you don't do this, bully for you! However, you are not representative of the evangelicals I know.

So then if we're not necessarily reading Genesis from a literalistic POV doesn't that leave room for the possibility that its liberal use metaphorical language is not an error? FWIW I don't know any Evangelicals that read the whole Bible from a literalistic POV. Of course I don't know any Evangelicals outside of where I go to church

 

[MrProximus]

Cooper Abrams III has a neat article about how to intepret the Bible. I am not sure independant Baptists like to be called "Evangelical". Southern Baptists seem to like to be called "Evangelical" though. The problem I see with Abrams description of how to interpret the Bible is that it is so complicated. I wonder if just sitting down with the Bible and reading a few words is even healthy if one is not thouroghly educated on how to interpret it. Of course I like to read the Bible and I do believe it is God's Word. I think it is healthy for all to question their own and other's interpretations.

 

[uu_sage]

As a Christian Universalist who was raised an evangelical in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Conservative Baptist Association of America (CBA), I will give praise and criticism to the Evangelical movement.

I wanna reclaim the title evangelical as a positive label and embrace it in its original meaning as one who bears witness to good news.

I am a proud liberal Christian, a Universalist and a evangelical.

The evangelicals I have respect for are: Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo and Donald Miller.

Points of praise
-----------------
The social justice tradition in evangelicalism especially for Abolitionism, women's rights, environmentalism, worker's rights, ect.
The potlucks and exuberant praise
The transformative experience of people sharing their testimonials and people starting their lives as disciples of Jesus
The use of emotion in worship
Bearing witness to one's faith and describe it effectively.
The Bible studies

Points of criticism
---------------------
In some sectors of evangelicalism, the tendency of pastors, churches and denominations to be homophobic, sexist, and religiously intolerant of more liberal Christians like me or intolerant of others of God's children in different religious traditions
In some sectors of evangelicalism, the tendency of pastors, churches and denominations to overemphasize Jesus' death to the exclusion of his resurrection, life and teaching.
-Biblical literalism and fundamentalism

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As a Christian Universalist who was raised an evangelical in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Conservative Baptist Association of America (CBA), I will give praise and criticism to the Evangelical movement.

I wanna reclaim the title evangelical as a positive label and embrace it in its original meaning as one who bears witness to good news.

I am a proud liberal Christian, a Universalist and a evangelical.

The evangelicals I have respect for are: Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo and Donald Miller.

Points of praise
-----------------
The social justice tradition in evangelicalism especially for Abolitionism, women's rights, environmentalism, worker's rights, ect.
The potlucks and exuberant praise
The transformative experience of people sharing their testimonials and people starting their lives as disciples of Jesus
The use of emotion in worship
Bearing witness to one's faith and describe it effectively.
The Bible studies

Points of criticism
---------------------
In some sectors of evangelicalism, the tendency of pastors, churches and denominations to be homophobic, sexist, and religiously intolerant of more liberal Christians like me or intolerant of others of God's children in different religious traditions
In some sectors of evangelicalism, the tendency of pastors, churches and denominations to overemphasize Jesus' death to the exclusion of his resurrection, life and teaching.
-Biblical literalism and fundamentalism

In light of the fact that this post is coming on the heels of my thread on the dishonest uses of "Christian" I have to give you frubals for the laugh:biglaugh:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Mod Post

Many posts have been removed from this thread to clean it up as a Same Faith Debate.

Remember, Rule 10 applies to Same Faith Debates as well as DIR's
​

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Question: do people here view evangelicalism as fundamentalism?

 

[greentwiga]

I am an evangelical and a fundamentalist. I am also a scientist. I had a difficult time with Genesis, until I realized my problem was with the interpretation, not the scriptures. I also have a problem with many fundamentalists, because they confuse republicanism with Christianity. A fundamentalist should love and respect people from all walks of life. We should offer them new life in the same intriguing way that Jesus did with the woman at the well. To paraphrase 1 Cor 13, If I am a fundamentalist and preach the Gospel clearly and believe that each and every word is the inspired word of God but do not love every other human, I am just a clanging cymbal.

 

[jtartar]

The title says it all. What's your take on Evangelicalism? Below are the main points on Evangelicalism from Wiki


The need for personal conversion (or being "born again");
A high regard for biblical authority;
An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ;[2]
Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.

KingOfTheJungle,
The whole meaning of the term Evangelicalism, is just w2hat you have stated, which is a dictionary definition. It has to do with preaching the Gospel. There is a term, Kerygma, which means teaching the Gospel exactly as the Apostles taught it in the first century. That would take in the points you mentioned.
Now, the problem is the Evangelical movement is not teaching the same as the Apostles. As stated by Jesus, TRUTH must be taught, not men's doctrines. What most are teaching seems to be Venomous Doctrine. Gosppel is not really Gospel unless it is exactly as taught by Jesus and the Apostles!!!