Posted on 07/26/2008 7:13:28 PM PDT by PAR35
I agree. I like the term "reformed." Not only does it refer to the church ridding itself of the errors of Rome through reformation, it also echoes the "new man" in Jesus Christ.
I hadn't thought of that. I think I'll 'borrow' that and share it with some folks.
All things work for the glory of God. 8~)
Amen, Migraine. That’s my thoughts about a person that’s an evangelical. S/he’s a born again believer.
Amen, Migraine. That’s my thoughts about a person that’s an evangelical. S/he’s a born again believer.
That's the problem.
When everybody and his dog, inside and outside of Protestantism, and Christianity itself, has their own different definition of "evangelical", the term looses any precision it might have had.
From the original piece:
Further, it’s not at all clear what it means to say that one is “an evangelical” any longer. ..... Consider that one can be an “evangelical” and affirm inerrancy in the traditional sense or deny it. One can hold to divine sovereignty or deny it. One can hold to the historic doctrine of the Trinity or deny it (via social Trinitarianism). One can affirm the historic Protestant doctrine of justification sola gratia et sola fide or deny it (via NPP or FV). One can affirm an open canon or deny it and be an evangelical. Today there are Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic evangelicals. Perhaps the greatest difference between the old definition of evangelical and the modern is that to be a modern “evangelical” is to deny the doctrine of the church—which follows from the pietist/QIRC trajectory of evangelicalism since the 18th century.
"Evangelical" as a term has a history that dates back at least to the beginning of the Protestant movement in Christianity.
Part of it is an inside/outside problem. Those on the inside of whatever, here conservative Protestants, will make distinctions those on the outside will not. Thus, to the TeeVee, anybody who talks about Jesus and isn't Roman Catholic, uberliberal liturgical mainline or in an overt cult, is evangelical.
Todd Bentley is an evangelical, did you know that? So sayeth that font of truth, Nightline, in their story on him. Thus, my current tagline.
How does the term "reformed" differ from the term "evangelical"? I read the article and don't recall seeing any clear definitions. I would consider myself Reformed and Evangelical. I try to present The Gospel at every opportunity, just as I believe all that are Reformed do as well.
If this is a key element to being an Evangelical, believing we are saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone, instead of surrendering the language we should be educating people as to terms. For example, the Romanists manipulate language to their benefit all the time. Calling the bread in the Lord's Supper the "host". People fall into the habit of calling the bread that and it's not a big reach to begin believing something is in it.
Amen, dear wmfights. You are soooo right.
Therefore, if a person has to pick one designation, reformed works for me because it implies the Scriptural mandate to preach the Gospel to all men. To say we are reformed and evangelical is somewhat redundant.
Yes, I tend to agree with you and the author that the word "evangelical" in modern times has been hijacked by misusers and the media. I also agree with him that the word should not be tossed, as there IS legitimate "evangelicalism" out there. We just have to be careful about being clear about what we mean. I still consider myself an "evangelical" because I believe it is the calling and command of God to all true believers to evangelize the true faith. I have always seen that as a GLARING difference between us and Apostolics. The average Apostolic skirts his responsibility and says "That's not my job".
Folks that claim to be reformed should subscribe to one of the reformed confessions - Baptist Confession of Faith, Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession, Second Helvetic, Canons of Dort, etc.
Evangelical has become so broad as to be almost meaningless at this point. A few weeks ago, I would have said that it covered anyone who has professed faith in Christ as his or her savior, but a recent survey indicates that perhaps some who ought not be considered Christian flock under that banner. “While 48 percent of all evangelicals surveyed think only born-again Christians will go to heaven, 45 percent said they do not believe that.” http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3267
IOW, a sizable number of evangelicals are not Christians. As I read this, 52-55% of those saying they are evangelical do not believe you must be born again, ie., have total Faith in Christ Alone, in order to go to heaven. It seems the appropriate response is to ask them if they are Christians and what does that mean.
They are pagans.
Historically, the term Evangelical referred to those who believed in the necessity, authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture contra the Romanist system and it’s incorporation of Greek pagan philosophy in which the sinner becomes saint through a metaphysical process of elevation on the “scale of being” which makes Scripture insufficient on it’s own right and requires that the Church is itself a continuing organ of revelation to help the sinner elevate his being.
As others have noted, the term today has more to do with an individuals experience rather than a position on the nature of Scripture.
I didn't know that. IOW, those that hold to Sola Scriptura.
Yes.
Ah, music. 8~)
What system is this?
The way by which one is reconciled unto the Father and becomes purified to be brought into his presence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.