Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, and my definition would be a person who upholds the cardinal truths of the scriptures, but is also engaged in dialog and debating current biblical scholarship/theological/cultural trends.With being Confessionaly Reformed in the 21st. Century should we as Christians identify ourselves as Evangelical? Since the term is widely used by modern heretics and false churches. And what is your definition of Evangelical?
No, I would go with evangelical, but not Evangelical.
One can get to Gospel from any of those labels.
Because of the vast differences between what we believe and how we worship,
This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word evangelical used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of evangelical reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."
But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word evangelical was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all evangelical if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
Is it just a quirk of this board (many here having strong views about worship) that the word evangelical is used to denote a particular and non-Reformed approach to worship? Or has the word changed in wider usage, so that evangelical now means more specific things than it used to mean, especially with regard to worship practices? Has the definition of what is evangelical narrowed that much?
Because back in my college days, I feel sure a comment about there being a vast difference between Reformed and evangelical worship would have sounded nonsensical.
Interested in your thoughts, folks.
Jack,
I agree that a good portion of Evangelicalism is against both Fundamentalism and Liberalism. Far too many (and I left one 5 years ago) Evangelical churches have a "sermon" that has much more anecdotal storytelling than preached Word and have pretty wayward doctrine. I think Michael Horton's book Christless Christianity has a finger on the pulse of what I call, pop- Evangelicalism. Ironically, to the degree they are "Christ-less" is the degree they are usually liberal, too.
For me, the destructive-ness of pop-E hits very close to home.....
This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word evangelical used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of evangelical reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."
But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word evangelical was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all evangelical if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
Is it just a quirk of this board (many here having strong views about worship) that the word evangelical is used to denote a particular and non-Reformed approach to worship? Or has the word changed in wider usage, so that evangelical now means more specific things than it used to mean, especially with regard to worship practices? Has the definition of what is evangelical narrowed that much?
Because back in my college days, I feel sure a comment about there being a vast difference between Reformed and evangelical worship would have sounded nonsensical.
Interested in your thoughts, folks.
I respect the fact that when a person transitions from a shallow evangelicalism into a solidly reformed church, they are going to experience a lot of negative feelings about their previous church because of what they were missing and the errors they received. Nevertheless, if they believed and taught the gospel, they are still in fact brothers and those negative experiences do not empty the Spirit of His power in their context either.
It is perfectly valid to consider the errors of other evangelicals to be significant, but we should be careful to distance ourselves from them only when it comes to upholding the truth, not to be needlessly divisive. Where we do have common ground is where it is most important to have common ground and that can be an avenue for ministry.
Yes, the original meaning intended for Evangelicals was that they were all Christians regardless of church label, that upheld the cardinal truths of the scriptures, the so called Fundamentals of the faith. The worship style, preaching style, church governing style was not in mind, as it was a broader looking to Christians who all held the same view on the core doctrines essential to the faith.This is interesting to me. I have often seen, on this board, the word evangelical used to mean churches that disagree with Reformed theology and, especially, do not follow Reformed worship distinctives. It is as if part of the definition of evangelical reads: "non-Reformed in worship practices."
But when I first started using the word not all that long ago (40-30 years ago, at most), it seemed there was no such thing as a defined, evangelical way to conduct worship. In fact, one main reason to use the word evangelical was to have an umbrella term that could encompass churches from many different worship traditions that were nevertheless united by holding firm against liberalism. The worship might be Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, tent-revivalist, or charismatic—but we called them all evangelical if the preacher proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
Is it just a quirk of this board (many here having strong views about worship) that the word evangelical is used to denote a particular and non-Reformed approach to worship? Or has the word changed in wider usage, so that evangelical now means more specific things than it used to mean, especially with regard to worship practices? Has the definition of what is evangelical narrowed that much?
Because back in my college days, I feel sure a comment about there being a vast difference between Reformed and evangelical worship would have sounded nonsensical.
Interested in your thoughts, folks.
All who have Jesus as their Lord/savior would be seen as being now part of the one Body of Christ. we all have different emphasis though, as some are more musical, others more into teaching/disciplining, and others more into witnessing per say for Christ.I respect the fact that when a person transitions from a shallow evangelicalism into a solidly reformed church, they are going to experience a lot of negative feelings about their previous church because of what they were missing and the errors they received. Nevertheless, if they believed and taught the gospel, they are still in fact brothers and those negative experiences do not empty the Spirit of His power in their context either.
It is perfectly valid to consider the errors of other evangelicals to be significant, but we should be careful to distance ourselves from them only when it comes to upholding the truth, not to be needlessly divisive. Where we do have common ground is where it is most important to have common ground and that can be an avenue for ministry.
I have never heard the term Reformed catholic, what do you mean by that?My preference would be "no", as I prefer to identify as a Reformed Catholic. In an Anglican context, however, evangelical is often used to describe believers in orthodoxy and vital religion, which gives the label some utility.
I have never heard the term Reformed catholic, what do you mean by that?
Reading your post, I remembered Rev. Winzer once posting something along the same line, and it turns out it was from the Binning book. It was sobering then and sobering now. https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-we-ashamed-of-our-birth.90224/I was reading the Puritan Hugh Binning's book Christian Love where he had a brilliant and sobering statement that was to the effect of, "We should not be ashamed to call brothers those whom Christ was not ashamed to call brothers."
"Evangelical" as a term often serves the position of whipping boy for a group of Christians who are either too shallow or too conservative, despite the fact that it is probably the best term that we have to describe the healthiest kind of ecumenicism possible between Protestants of differing theology. There is a substantial agreement that we can have between the Reformed and gospel-beliving Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, non-Reformed Baptists, Non-denominationals, and Anglicans that we cannot share with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, or liberals. Yet is also makes sense to have formal divisions to avoid transgressing one another's consciences and allowing us to uphold the deeply held theological distinctions we all believe to be biblical.
I have a suspicion that much of the time gospel-believing Christians want to distance themselves from the term "evangelical" is due to the shame to be associated with the other groups.
I prefer Identifying myself as Christian, Catholic, Calvinist, Paedo-Baptist, Presbyterian . I borrowed this from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. From his old article on Infant Baptism.