The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
As for whether one should call premillennial dispensationalism a form of Christianity or not, this is controversial. I know that most liberal evangelicals prefer to say it does fall under Christianity, but I think that is just because of the liberal predilection for inclusiveness. You should remember that fundies do not consider non-fundamentalists to be Christians. Thus, I think the tables should be turned on them.
I do not deny in the least that there are significant Puritan influences on evangelicalism taken broadly (the latter derives from the former, as far as I am aware) which, among other things, gave rise to the revivalist movements. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
At least the fundies do not say that they received any new revelations: just that they figured out the correct method for interpreting the Bible. Thus I would concede that there is no fact of the matter of whether fundies are Christians or not: denying that they are is something more akin to a political move. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
Let's agree to disagree. But there is the following problem.
Personally, I think that claiming a new revelation is one of the ways you step over the line. I haven't thought much about it and could be wrong, but according to your "dangerous" line of thought, one could argue that Muslims are Christians. After all, the prophet Mohammed accepted the Bible as the word of God just like the prophet Joseph Smith did, and Muslims claim, I believe, just as the Jews do, that they worship the same God as Christians do. The Unitarians are Christians, so Muslims are not disqualified for rejecting the Trinity. I don't know this for a fact (and don't have time to check Wikipedia because I have to go out), but it seems to me that since the Unitarians reject the Trinity, they must reject the divinity of Christ, too. That means, so far as I can see, that according to your line of thought, if the Unitarians are Christians, then so are the Muslims.
Gnostics didn't claim they had new revelation. They had their own gospels that were written at about the same time as the canonical ones. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
That's absolutely true. To me it qualifies them for the term of sectarian rather than something other than Christians themselves.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 118 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2712 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments