Re: [asa] An Evangelical Manifesto

Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> Any comments on this part?
>
>
>
> Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to
> which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and
> conservative fundamentalism. Called by Jesus to be ―in the world, but
> not of it, Christians, especially in modern society, have been pulled
> toward two extremes. Those more liberal have tended so to accommodate
> the world that they reflect the thinking and lifestyles of the day, to
> the point where they are unfaithful to Christ; whereas those more
> conservative have tended so to defy the world that they resist it in
> ways that also become unfaithful to Christ. The liberal revisionist
> tendency was first seen in the eighteenth century and has become more
> pronounced today, reaching a climax in versions of the Christian faith
> that are characterized by such weaknesses as an exaggerated estimate
> of human capacities, a shallow view of evil, an inadequate view of
> truth, and a deficient view of God. In the end, they are sometimes no
> longer recognizably Christian. As this sorry capitulation occurs, such
> ―alternative gospels represent a series of severe losses that
> eventually seal their demise:
>
>
>
> First, a loss of authority, as sola Scriptura (―by Scripture alone‖)
> is replaced by sola cultura (―by culture alone); Second, a loss of
> community and continuity, as ―the faith once delivered becomes the
> faith of merely one people and one time, and cuts itself off from
> believers across the world and down the generations; Third, a loss of
> stability, as in Dean Inge’s apt phrase, the person ―who marries the
> spirit of the age soon becomes a widower; Fourth, a loss of
> credibility, as ―the new kind of faith‖ turns out to be what the
> skeptic believes already, and there is no longer anything solidly,
> decisively Christian for seekers to examine and believe; Fifth, a loss
> of identity, as the revised version of the faith loses more and more
> resemblance to the historic Christian faith that is true to Jesus. In
> short, for all their purported sincerity and attempts to be relevant,
> extreme proponents of liberal revisionism run the risk of becoming
> what Søren Kierkegaard called ―kissing Judases – Christians who betray
> Jesus with an interpretation.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>
> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
While the general concern seems sound enough, it is still ... very
general. The criticized extremes are not specified. They are only
labeled as "exaggerated", "shallow", "inadequate", and "deficient". So
of course then, by definition, they are not where a Christian should be,
but we are still left wide open to decide what views or camps merit
those words and to apply them to whatever other category of thought we
wish to criticize.

Also, do participants here advocate "sola Scriptura" ---or do we
rather, as it seems to me, advocate more of a Scripture interpreted by
the help of other tools such as the wider body (the Church), and even
nature (the two book model)? Which is NOT, to my thinking, the same
as diminishing the authority of Scripture to a level below those other
things, but rather, recognizing that our interpretation of it can never
happen in a vacuum, and it is unhealthy to try and pretend so.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 8 08:03:01 2008