The thing is - this anti-semitic, anti-catholic brazilnut evangelical pastor differs radically from people like Danny etc. on the anti-semitism
They, and other self-called "evangelicals" on FR are not anti-semitic. But on other topics like the solas and the "born again" emphasis, they would be similar in beliefs to the Brazil nut
We can't use the term "mainstream Evangelical" as, there isn't any common consensus beyond the solas and the "born again" emphasis -- for instance you have these anti-semites like in the article and you also have Evangelicals who reject the Trinity
In fact the very term "evangelical" is too broad - as it encompasses the non-Trinitarians, the anti-semites as well as good ol' Danny and others. It's far better to just point out "the church of Dan" - as on other topics there are substantial differences.
Even if that presumed similarity was established, your only basis for calling this Brazilian evangelical despite his aberrational virulent anti-semitism, was that of his presumed belief in being born again. Yet evangelicals also hold to the Trinity as Creator, the Virgin birth, the physical vicarious death and resurrection of Christ, by effectual regenerating heart-purifying faith in Him, His coming again in judgment, and resurrection of the just and unjust, and eternal life and damnation respective to each, and many more. Thus consistent with even your solitary shared commonality=sameness premise while presuming more, and ignoring anything that does not conflate, then evangelicals can be called Catholic.
We can't use the term "mainstream Evangelical" as, there isn't any common consensus beyond the solas and the "born again" emphasis
Another false statement, contrary to abundant testimony from those who are labelled Evangelical.
-- for instance you have these anti-semites like in the article and you also have Evangelicals who reject the Trinity. In fact the very term "evangelical" is too broad - as it encompasses the non-Trinitarians, the anti-semites as well as good ol' Danny and others.
Meanwhile you have Catholics (many on FR) who even reject Francis as being pope, and Catholic, and also reject liberal Catholics (and many others) as being so, despite Rome manifestly considering them members in life and in death. Thus "Catholic" is too broad, and consistent with your reasoning, we can't use the term "mainstream Catholic." "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)
It's far better to just point out "the church of Dan" - as on other topics there are substantial differences.
Consistent with that, you have multitudes of Catholic churches. As a poster who_would_fardels_bear delineated:
so-called traditional Catholics have split themselves into almost as many sects as Protestants have. There are:
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner
(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
And as another poster wryly summed it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
Thus we have, Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …