All Comments for: How Old Is the Old-Time Religion? | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > June (Web-only)

Christianity Today, June (Web-only), 2009 |

Theology in the News

How Old Is the Old-Time Religion?

Scholars challenge David Bebbington in The Advent of Evangelicalism.

Reviewed by Collin Hansen | posted 6/29/2009 09:26AM

Biblical scholars and systematic theologians usually grab the headlines during contemporary debates over evangelical identity. Church historians are called to testify as even-handed observers who place ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Jim Gross

Posted: July 09, 2009 2:57 PM

First, the Merriam-Webster dictionary states that criteria, when used as a singular word, has been gaining acceptance for nearly 50 years. So, while not proper, it is at least acceptable. Thus, I don't think that one should negate what is being said over something so trivial. Second, I can appreciate one's desire to move to Roman Catholicism. For one, it is deeply mystical, which adds a dimension to one's spirituality that is missing in normal, Evangelical churches. One shouldn't be quick to dismiss one or the other without spending some time in quiet contemplation and deep prayer/Bible study. Such a decision is pretty big and should be taken only if you feel certain that God has demanded it of you. Being civil and non-judgemental should be the hallmark of Christians around the world, regardless of tradition. Especially when the discourse is on a Christian website and presumably between professing Christians. Cheers

Peter

Posted: July 03, 2009 10:45 AM

I am not sure about evangelicalism, per se, but the argument (at least to the degree that it's portrayed in this review) put forth in the Advent of Evangelicalism seems to walk very closely with Noll's "America's God." It seems clear that the modern American face of evangelicalism is that of the Enlightenment, what, with its scientific (or at least formulaic) approach to conversion, faith, and so forth. This is not altogether a bad thing, but it does point to the fact that American evangelicalism is, indeed, modern. Moreover, the post-moderns are doing modern evangelical faith a favor in calling it back to an earlier time.

Lee C

Posted: June 30, 2009 5:46 PM


re Andy Tucker. . .Someone is asleep at the wheel??

andy t ucker j c

Posted: June 30, 2009 4:03 PM

morals of confused or lost caused major abuse on young teens and adults.Medi marij(alc-unhea) is healthy when in pain,kissing sfter church is rewarding and healthy if with a dedicatedchristian,sexual relation with a christian best friend in tribenot aleinated or undedicated.Marriage at20 seems weird because it maytake a while to find mr or mrs best friend right.Wierd is that correctness is different in people.Such as beig athleteic,100%christian focused, sexual, submissive,prochristian social,friendly to other christians is not picked because of lazy untried lifestyle or tribe aspects. Athletics exhlirate,christian focused is the way the truth the life, social because you try to care.These persons are targeted by beasts because of peace.Happens a lot.Parents stop kids from talking to anointed because of parents sins.Be ready for rapture(KS?) and or trip to mt.ve IN area.Miltants are forming be ready.Thanks.Do not care about trials.be a servant.EndofWorld cause of evil miltants? Faith!

Basil

Posted: June 30, 2009 9:50 AM


Thus this article shows that there can be no one accepted history and definition of Evangelicalism. It is much too diverse for that. One would have a better chance of nailing Jello to a wall. But it never hurts to try.

corpuschristioutreachministries

Posted: June 30, 2009 7:32 AM


The contrast between evangelical assurance [which wesley believed, though an arminian] and puritan belief is interesting. you could say the majority view of calvanism that the puritans embraced was the strongest assurance doctrine in all of church history!

The G

Posted: June 29, 2009 7:36 PM

Catholicism? You've got to be joking! The mass is a fraud. You have to NOT read the New Testament to agree with it. Hebrews 7 is clear. Jesus is our High Priest who offered up Himself ONCE AND FOR ALL. The New Testament is clear: There is only ONE mediator between God and men and that is the Man Christ Jesus, not Mary and anyother dead. Christians are made by the preaching of that Christ paid the penalty for men's sin for him on the cross. This is grace. It is free. It is received by conditions: faith, repentance, immersion. Salvation is assured because it is the promise of God (Acts 2:38-39) and HE is not a liar. The results are the new life in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:4; John 3:5; Ephesians 2:10, etc.). It's quite immaterial with regard to church history. God has spoken in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. He is the great Communicator. God means what He says. God says what He means. We must submit to Him not any man or any counsel of men who alter what His will is

Another John

Posted: June 29, 2009 6:28 PM

Jarrod, Nothing you've critiqued "Catholic culture" for is really Catholicism. Come on over and help us enlighten all those who call themselves "Catholic" and do not live the faith. Catholicism is all about conversion, daily walking in holiness, living daily by the Scriptures, etc. Mother Teresa and St. Francis of Assisi are examples I give to Protestants of Catholics who truly lived their faith. They actually did what the Church taught them to do! They were not great Christians "in spite of" their Catholicism, but "because of it." As another John who has converted from Protestant ministry to Catholicism, the Catholic faith has helped by daily walk with God tremendously. God bless.

pastor/col bill

Posted: June 29, 2009 5:03 PM

He pretty much lost me when he spoke of "this one criteria alone". I am so weary of half-educated people presuming to elicit a sense of credibility in erudite matters. It's "criterion" for one and "criteria" for 2 or more. I learned that in H.S. Beyond that one gets lost in all the chaos of Protestant history (sects/denominations) and "thought". Who needs it when there's plenty of "scandal" in the world?

Skip	Posted: June 29, 2009 4:20 PM

This reminds me of the arguments on the bus that took place in C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce. I suppose church history has a place. I never see Paul or anyone else having these discussions. The early leaders dealt with day to day issues and encouragement to Christian living, but did not concern themselves with when or how a particular situation began. They preached Christ crucified and justification by grace through faith.

Jarrod

Posted: June 29, 2009 4:19 PM

Thanks for the kind offer, John. I might find common cause with you, but when I've attended Catholic services and interacted with Catholics, the culture of Catholicism is so detached from daily Christian living, I could not see it as a way of life. While there's plenty of crucicentrism, there's not enough biblicism, and no conversionism. It's a "show up for an hour on Sunday" and then live as you please. Just proclaiming "I'm Catholic" is not quite active enough for me.

John Holecek

Posted: June 29, 2009 4:01 PM


I'm a Catholic convert, having served previously as a Protestant missionary. The Reformation severed all continuity with historic Christianity, and Protestantism has been in a muddle ever since as to what it is. For those of you who have grown tired of these endless debates, I suggest looking into the Catholic Church.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment