[ ... still under construction ... aren't we all? ... ]

 

Generic Evangelical Christianity

Einstein Cross 

 

Generic Evangelical Christianity as understood herein is simply what Christians have believed for the better part of two millennia, e.g., the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, and the 5 "Solas" of the Protestant Reformation. In fact, it is more or less what C. S. Lewis* would have called "Mere Christianity" in his must read book of the same title.

Generic Evangelical Christianity is broadly, if somewhat anachronistically, Arminian in its general approach to such key matters as atonement, free will, etc.

*For the curious, the word "xtianity" is C. S. Lewis's shorthand for "Christianity."

 

 

For specific information on key topics please scroll down.

(Perhaps "Random Christianity" would have been a better name for this web page ....)

 

 

 

An Occasional Twist of Chesterton: Classic Quotes from the great and the inimitable GKC

 

 

Critique of limited atonement (sometimes called definite or particular atonement) by theologian J. B. Torrance that shows how an unbiblical view of the atonement may owe more to Aristotle and Islam than to Scripture.

 

 

Critique of theistic determinism (sometimes called theological determinism) by New Testament scholar G. H. Juncker that shows how an unbiblical view of God's sovereignty (such that God causes/decrees/determines everything) leads inexorably to the conclusion that God is evil and not good in any meaningful sense of the word good.

G. H. Juncker, "The Dilemma of Theistic Determinism," Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 12.2 (Fall 2015): 15-22. 

As a coda or epilogue to that article note the following two perceptive quotes from C.S. Lewis:

On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our “black” may be His “white”, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good”, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what”. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity—when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing—may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship. (Problem of Pain, Chap. 3 titled "Divine Goodness")

As regards the Fall, I submit that the general tenor of scripture does not encourage us to believe that our knowledge of the Law has been depraved in the same degree as our power to fulfil it. ... Our righteousness may be filthy and ragged; but Christianity gives us no ground for holding that our perceptions of right are in the same condition. They may, no doubt, be impaired; but there is a difference between imperfect sight and blindness. A theology which goes about to represent our practical reason as radically unsound is heading for disaster. If we once admit that what God means by "goodness" is sheerly different from what we judge to be good, there is no difference left between pure religion and devil worship. (Christian Reflections, Chap. 6 titled "The Poison of Subjectivism")

[On the same topic of divine goodness see also the comments of well-known Arminian theologian Roger Olson at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/03/c-s-lewis-said-it-gods-goodness-cannot-be-wholly-other/ ]

[On the topic of theistic determinism see also the comments of well-known Evangelical philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig who articulates "five very powerful reasons" for rejecting it. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10

 

Critique of calvinist D. A. Carson's, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000) by scholar-at-large and all around Erasmian gadfly Arminius Redivivus showing that when all is said and done God does not (contra Carson) truly or really love everyone—a view that is in direct contradiction to John 3:16 and to God's very nature or essence (1 John 4:8). In other words, the idea that God has different kinds of love such that He allegedly loves different people differently, by loving some people (e.g., the elect) in some ways but other people (e.g., the non-elect) in other ways, and therefore can honestly be said to "love everyone," does not hold biblical water.

Arminius Redivivus, "The Equivocal Doctrine of the Love of God"

[On the same basic topic, and perhaps a bit less polemically, see also the excellent and well-reasoned book by Christian philosopher Jerry L. Walls titled Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2016). His answer is an unequivocal Yes!]