NEW-STYLE LIBERALSSo what's changed? Today, many of those I would call liberals would proudly call themselves "evangelical." So why aren't they evangelicals? After all, they affirm miracles, Jesus' physical resurrection, the need for conversion, and the centrality of the cross. Aren't those things what evangelicalism is all about?
Recently, we in Britain have had to confront that very question, with prominent evangelicals denying penal substitution but claiming they are still evangelical. On what grounds? Because (they say) they simply teach what they find in the Bible. They want to live under the Bible. How then, they ask, can they be called liberal? This has come up time and again—over penal substitution, over Clark Pinnock and open theism, over questions of practicing homosexuality. These are said to be possible evangelical views, because evangelicals in good conscience hold them as biblical teaching.
You can read Ovey's complete article at Notes from the Future: Evangelical Liberalism in the UK
Posts
2 comments:
Hey Charlie,
You say "The purpose of Reasonable Christian is to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ from an Evangelical and Reformed Anglican perspective."
Does this not mean that you are actually defending your Evangelical and Reformed Anglican perspective and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What do you think about the proposition that making your particular perspective equal and synonyms with the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" might be considered idol worship?
- Leo
Well, Leo, since the Gospel is defined by Scripture and since the Protestant and Reformed churches all agree on what this Gospel actually is, I have to say that you're completely off the mark. What you really mean is that no one can really know what the Gospel is. That would be agnosticism. I'm not an agnostic or an atheist.
In the future you will need to post with a real identity/profile.
Charlie
Post a Comment