Scandalous by Adrian Warnock on Scandalous by Don Carson

From Adrian's blog post: Scandalous by Don Carson.

There was a time when the definition of an “evangelical” was someone who liked John Stott and Billy Graham.

Well it made me laugh (or was it cry?) !

6 thoughts on “Scandalous by Adrian Warnock on Scandalous by Don Carson

  1. Dave Faulkner

    The second sentence is worse: ‘Today, perhaps one could suggest that Don Carson has a similarly defining role, alongside people like John Piper.’ So you’re only an evangelical if you’re a Calvinist and/or a complementarian.

  2. Dave

    My first problem was that the definition of an evangelical did not mention Jesus!
    Adrian has always believed that only Calvinists and Male Headship believers are evangelicals.
    This is by no means the first time he has tried to change the definition of the word evangelical. I just think it is a defining moment when you get so lost in the particular sub-culture that you forget the heart of what an evangelical is/does.
    Google found three pages of search results on 42 for “definition eveangelical” here is one that is clear (and against in response to a crazy redefinition by Adrian): 42: Back on form: defining evangelical.
    Quick summary. In the classic (Bebbington) definition an evangelical demonstrates 5 characteristics:
    Biblicism, Christocentrism, Crucicentrism,
    Conversionism & Activism.
    NB I agree with Adrian on the importance of the resurrection and see that in and through all these characteristics.

  3. Tractor Girl

    Interesting with what he is saying that he is seeking to (i)say the contemporary defining evangelicals who have taken over from Stott et al are all north American and (ii) that he is moving away from the unity which Stott appealed for in his book Evangelical Truth. This text also includes some good thoughts on extending Bebbeingtons definition (and Packer’s which preceeded it) to including the importance of the resurrection.

  4. Martin Jack

    One definition of evangelical going back to the Reformation is that of someone who affirms the good news of the gospel enshrined in Jesus’ penal substutionary atonement for our sin. A truth that you deny, Dave, in contradiction of the Protestant Reformation.

  5. Dave

    If you search this blog for penal you will discover that I don’t in fact deny penal substitution.
    Instead I deny that it is the only model of atonement. I accept that it is a valid model among others and I admit I have problems relating it to God as revealed in Jesus.
    I reject your assertion that truth is judged by the Protestant Reformation rather than by Jesus who is truth or the Word of God.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>