Machiavelli says:
ive got myself into a little stouch with michael jensen, his son
Smootherprince says:
oh, ok a doctrinal debate
Machiavelli says:
sort of
Smootherprince says:
and here I was thinking a stouch was a Bulgarian brand of car
Machiavelli says:
my claim is that "Beneath the surface, it can be observed that the entire edifice of evangelicalism is founded on an anti-Catholic polemicism."
Smootherprince says:
aah, a stoush
Machiavelli says:
indeed
Smootherprince says:
kind of like a skoda only from the fifties and more rounded
Machiavelli says:
what do you mean?
Smootherprince says:
Well, the stouch was probably the most affordable car in Europe from the 1951-1952 but no one wanted them when they learned that lawnmower parts were interchangeable
What does Mr Jensen maintain
Machiavelli says:
that such a claim is "far-fetched"
Smootherprince says:
well I guess when you are starting from a humanistic perspective it may be more reasonable, but from a God centric biblical world veiw hard to substantiate
Machiavelli says:
how come?
Smootherprince says:
Well, you would have to get rid of much of Pauls criticism of religion and the religious systems of his day. In short I think that your staement is too absolutist
Machiavelli says:
i dont see what that has to do with the historical development of evangelicalism
Smootherprince says:
I think much of the development of evangelicalism began with a very sincere attemp at reform from within the catholic church Luther being the prime example, but the problem was not only that the system was sick the problem was that it was structurally unsound and had to be changed. Luther came to that conclusion when he burnt the papal bull etc
It wasnt the 95 theses that was the point of schism
Machiavelli says:
well, two questions need to be addressed:
1) whether Luther can correctly be identified as an "evangelical" as we use the term today
Machiavelli says:
2) whether neo-evangelicalism has gone further than Luther and has thrown the baby out with the holy water, so to speak
Smootherprince says:
fair questions on both. I guess Luther through his understanding of justification by faith and his disregard for tradition over scripture could be seen as the father of evangelicalism
Machiavelli says:
for instance, as you well know, Luther had a particularly high Mariology
Smootherprince says:
the key question for me, and this relates to your second question is what holds authority, the tradion or the church or the word of God? Oh, he was in many ways very catholic. He was a product of the system.
Machiavelli says:
he didnt see the Rosary as contradicting the Bible, but merely stating that it wasnt explicitly taught
Smootherprince says:
he also was less intensive in his resistance of such things at a later stage. I guess the key to all this is love, if what we are burdening people with is more of the form of holiness, its words and construct, but by our actions denyuing the power of Christ to set men free from such bondages as religion, have we really loved them at all

I think the cultural impact of Christianity is huge, its implications in the area of morality and human history very significant, but at its heart its a simple message, that children can understand, I think this is the great legacy of the evangelicals

I will grant you that evangelicals can learn a lot from the catholic understanding of incarnational theology
Machiavelli says:
the whole discussion took place in the shadow of a blog entry by Jensen where he suggested that perhaps evangelicals are so afraid to appear Catholic that they throw out sacramental forms of worship
I simply stated that i agreed but that he did not take his observations to their logical conclusion
Smootherprince says:
ok
Smootherprince says:
Sacrements are quite different issue
because the catholic approach would see them as having magical properties, a position untennable to evangelicals
Machiavelli says:
well, they wouldn't be seen as "magical" in themselves, but only effacious within the context of an individual who takes the sacraments with the right mind set
Smootherprince says:
I guess I was thinking here mainly of transubstantiation
Machiavelli says:
i must admit that something i cant get my head around
Machiavelli says:
basically, my premise of evangelicalism as "anti-Catholic polemicism" takes the perspective of Hegelian dialectical historicism
Machiavelli says:
in which evangelicalism constantly faces some kind of an existential identity crisis in which it is seeking to define itself by demarcating itself from Catholicism and to some extent, modernism
Smootherprince says:
I guess Hegel was an absolutist in many ways, idealist at best
Smootherprince says:
this is where the preterist veiw is really helpful
Machiavelli says:
yes, its rather ironic that Hegel's philosophy itself is subjected to a dialectical process
Machiavelli says:
in which sense
Machiavelli says:
i also claimed that evangelicalism was better defined by what it is not, rather than what it is
Smootherprince says:
I think evangelicalism has been around long enough to have a very clear identity quite separate, although admittedly noticably separate from catholicism
Machiavelli says:
thats what im trying to work out
Machiavelli says:
the more i investigate, the more i see evangelicalism as little more than a reactionary protest movement
Smootherprince says:
I think one of the key concerns for me is that we have become stuck with the term reformed
Smootherprince says:
rather than reforming
Machiavelli says:
yes, thats true
Smootherprince says:
we need to be constantly distilling the truth of the Bible and put it into todays situation
Machiavelli says:
this will depend upon the premises of your foundation
Smootherprince says:
Our context is continually changing, I guess the frustration for much of Catholicism is that time has shown up very clear flaws in its theology which it refuses to face up to for fear that the world will stop turning, masses in latin and single priests being two noticable examples
Smootherprince says:
well Jesus gave us the right, even the duty to interpret scripture. " whatever you bind on earth... etc relates to binding and loosing IE what was allowed and what was not.
Machiavelli says:
one reason why i could not conceive of myself becoming an Orthodox Catholic
Smootherprince says:
could not conceive being the operative word
Machiavelli says:
but even making that claim revolves around making an interpretation that may or may not be right
Smootherprince says:
basically the pope said its ok for monks and nuns to kiss as long as they dont get into the habit
Smootherprince says:
well perhaps you can think of an old testament parrellel
Smootherprince says:
like writing the laws on our hearts and on our minds
Smootherprince says:
or when dealing with the question of thew ubiquitous chinaman who never heard the Gospel Paul writes and says well, if he obeyed the law without knowing it...
Smootherprince says:
what happened if he ate pork?
Smootherprince says:
we would have to render God into the unfair box
Machiavelli says:
indeed
Machiavelli says:
sometimes i wish i didnt have an analytical mind
Machiavelli says:
life would be much less confusing
Smootherprince says:
There is clear precedent for US to interpret scripture, but to do it prayerfully and in the fear of God
Smootherprince says:
there is also ample evidence for me at least to question and argue and disagree with God
Machiavelli says:
oh, i agree
Smootherprince says:
we might not win, but he wants more than anything to know us
Machiavelli says:
but the thing is that even after that is done, your interpretation will still exist within the framework of your worldview and your theological premises
Smootherprince says:
absolutely