# A Common (conservative) Evangelical Faith?



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 29, 2009)

Would you say that there is, _generally speaking_, underneath the (very- important-and-not-to-be-swept-under-any-rug) theological disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians, Presbyterians, episcopals, and indies, covenentals and Dispensationalists, confessionals and non-confessionals, etc., _one common evangelical faith_ among, for lack of a better term, 'conservative (and/or) evangelical Protestants'? That is, is there a _basic evangelical orthodoxy_ linking these often wildly diverse and at-each-others-throats groups (where, even if, say, the Calvinist believes the typical Arminian to be in serious error, he cannot say that he is in _heresy_, crossing that line of basic evangelical orthodoxy)?


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 29, 2009)

McGrath lists the key beliefs to include the following:
* The supreme authority of Scripture as a source of knowledge of God and a guide to Christian living. 
* The majesty of Jesus Christ, both as incarnate God and Lord and as the Savior of sinful humanity. 
* The lordship of the Holy Spirit. 
* The need for personal conversion. 
* The priority of evangelism for both individual Christians and the church as a whole. 
* The importance of the Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship, and growth. 

For nomenclature purposes, Bebbington famously suggested that the bottom line evangelical beliefs center around . . .
* Conversionism
* Biblicism
* Activism
* Cruicentrism

Now, if you accept those minimalistic sets of convictions (either McGrath or Bebbington), then, "yes," we have an underlying core (at least at the level of our professional leadership). However, Barna continues to embarrass us with empirical data to prove that rank and file "evangelicals" may believe or do just about anything. And, as Scott Clark has shown, the term "evangelical" has almost ceased to be a meaningful category. A bewildering array of differences on issues such as the exclusivity of Jesus Christ, the necessity for coming to God through Jesus Christ (as opposed to the so-called Christ incognito), homosexuality, the role of women, hermeneutical variations (so much so that it makes a "wax nose" look rock-like), and more abound in addition to the classic differences you delineated in your OP.

In terms of where we hail from, sociologist James Hunter demonstrates the organic pedigree of the evangelical family tree as branching forth in four traditions:
(1) the Baptist tradition, 
(2) the Holiness-Pentecostal tradition, 
(3) the Anabaptist tradition, and 
(4) the Reformational-Confessional tradition

So you can have a John MacArthur, Joel Osteen, John Yoder, R.C. Sproul, and James Boice all claiming to be "evangelical."


----------



## Edward (Nov 29, 2009)

I would say that there is a common faith among modern Evangelicals which we, as Confessional folks, do not hold. 

But you really seem to be asking where the line lies between error and heresy.

Let's stir things more:

Are we closer to a Romanist who can and will recite the Nicene Creed, but depends on works for salvation, or an 'Evangelical' who can't or won't subscribe to the Creed, and who also depends on works for salvation?


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Nov 29, 2009)

I'm not sure. If there is, it's probably pretty shallow. The typical conservative Christian is probably not very familiar with the Nicene Creed, much less the Athanasian or Chalcedonian. In fact, these things may even be viewed as hindrances to Christian growth and maturity. We're an age that doesn't like book learnin', at least not when it comes to theology or following Christ. 

Consider someone like Maximus the Confessor. He had his tongue cut off for espousing Chalcedonian Christology. Most modern, "conservative" believers would say "Chalce-who?" and believe that all such arguments are useless and not spiritual...


----------



## Wayne (Nov 29, 2009)

A different approach to Nathan's question, Dennis:

There may be some controversy about this (a minor quibble, perhaps), but I remember Dr. Robert Reymond teaching that in fact Arminianism, properly defined, teaches what is called the governmental theory of atonement, whereby you look at the cross of Calvary and seeing the cost of sin, turn from sin to righteousness under your own power or by your own will. Most evangelicals are not Arminians by that definition. (and if I've confused what Reymond was saying, someone please correct me--I remember he did have an authoritative source, or sources, on this point)

By contrast, I think that what most of us call Arminianism is actually evangelical universalism [EU]--namely, the idea that Christ by His death paid for the sins of every human being who has ever lived on the planet, and that it is simply requisite for each person to turn to Christ in faith in order to be saved (the old "check is in the bank" idea). 

So in that both Reformed and evangelical universalists both look to Jesus Christ as the alone payment for our sins against a holy God, with salvation received by grace alone through faith alone, then in that way there is a common confession. 

Classic Arminianism (at least by Reymond's definition), with its governmental theory of atonement, is heresy because it is auto-salvific. Evangelical universalism on the other hand is "simply" a very serious error [i.e., failing to recognize what it means to be dead in sin and positing a scheme whereby God's plan can be thwarted].


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 29, 2009)

Wayne said:


> There may be some controversy about this (a minor quibble, perhaps), but I remember Dr. Robert Reymond teaching that in fact Arminianism, properly defined, teaches what is called the governmental theory of atonement, whereby you look at the cross of Calvary and seeing the cost of sin, turn from sin to righteousness under your own power or by your own will. Most evangelicals are not Arminians by that definition. (and if I've confused what Reymond was saying, someone please correct me--I remember he did have an authoritative source, or sources, on this point)
> 
> By contrast, I think that what most of us call Arminianism is actually evangelical universalism [EU]--namely, the idea that Christ by His death paid for the sins of every human being who has ever lived on the planet, and that it is simply requisite for each person to turn to Christ in faith in order to be saved (the old "check is in the bank" idea).
> 
> ...



Keen insights, Wayne.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 29, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Keen insights, Wayne.



Thank you, sir. After 200 hours of seminary, I guess something had to stick, eh?


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 29, 2009)

Edward said:


> I would say that there is a common faith among modern Evangelicals which we, as Confessional folks, do not hold.
> 
> But you really seem to be asking where the line lies between error and heresy.
> 
> ...



The moment any so-called "evangelical" depends on works for salvation he is not an evangelical as the term was historically understood to at least the 1970's and he is not one as a substantiall minority (at least) or majority of self labeled evangelicals today use the term.

The gap between anyone who depends on any form of works rigteousness and any true Christian is the gap between hell and heaven. Infinity minus x is still infinity.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 29, 2009)

Yes, I think we have much in common with "broadly evangelical" churches.

Often the doctrines of grace, and the systematic biblical understanding behind them are not understood as they are- about the sovereignty of God. They are necessarily related to and dependent upon one another (TULIP).

So, without the central focus and understanding of God's sovereignty, people imagine themselves "four point" Calvinists or as I heard someone described a "3.17951" point Calvinist. It would be as if God were only 64% or 80% sovereign. Not even logically possible, let alone theologically.

So, it's a matter of growth, diligent use of the means of grace God has appointed- Word, prayer and sacrament to understand God as He has revealed Himself and as He is to be worshiped by His creatures.

Because of the Spirit, believers can understand and agree, only because of Him.


----------



## Curt (Nov 29, 2009)

The word "evangelical" has practically no meaning today. Yet it stirs a lot of conversation. When I wrote about it on my blog in February, 2008, it brought a lot more comment than most blog entries I have written (not that there are a lot of comments on most topics) BTW the URL for the blog is coffee with curt.

I offer up what I wrote at that time:

What is this thing called Evangelicalism?

In the 1970s, when I became a Christian, people were already asking the question, “What is an Evangelical?” In the context in which I lived at the time, Europe, the answer was really quite simple. It meant “Protestant.” But that did not solve the matter. I did have to come back to my native land.

Arriving in the USA and heading off to a seminary (known to some as “saint school”), I found the same question being asked. The answers given at the time were historical or theological in nature. They were also inconclusive.

I still ask the question. Why? Because there are so many people who want to crawl under this umbrella with whom I discern very little commonality of belief or practice. Wheaton College defines the modern term this way:

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today as we enter the 21st-century. The first is to see as "evangelical" all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella-demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is. A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.
(To read the entire article, click here).


There really isn’t a lot of help there, is there? Maybe we can understand this a little better if we recognize that the word often has an adverb attached to it. Very often people (in the USA) refer to something they call “broadly evangelical.” Now we’re getting somewhere – I think. Why do I think that? Because I can look at the wide array of theological systems (and non-systems!), and the worship and lifestyle practices of those claiming to be “broadly evangelical” and note that, in fact, very little is meant by the term. Mormons lay claim to the mantle as easily as do Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, various Church or Christ groups, and myriad other groups. The “Emerging Church” claims what is left after evangelicalism and mainstream denominationalism finish off our spiritual sensibilities. I have no problem at all confusing broadly evangelical groups with liberals, heretics, and generally mixed-up folk.

So, what to do? You can call me a Christian, or a Protestant, or a Calvinist (that’s a definition waiting for another essay). Those are just a few of the many names I have been called! I would prefer it, however, if you didn’t refer to me as either evangelical or broadly evangelical.


----------



## steadfast7 (Dec 1, 2009)

TaylorOtwell said:


> I'm not sure. If there is, it's probably pretty shallow. The typical conservative Christian is probably not very familiar with the Nicene Creed, much less the Athanasian or Chalcedonian. In fact, these things may even be viewed as hindrances to Christian growth and maturity. We're an age that doesn't like book learnin', at least not when it comes to theology or following Christ.



Would you say that if Christians firmly confessed the first 4 councils, we would have a robust and deep Christian faith and identity that could take us to eternity?

If we were to achieve this level of unity, would it be worth doing away with the Calvinist-Arminian controversy, and all other family squabbles? Or, do you believe that Calvinism is absolutely essential?

I say this because the first 5 centuries did not emphasize the doctrines of grace (a post Reformation emphasis), but this was the era of the venerated Fathers and ecumenical Christianity, and their faith was anything but shallow.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 1, 2009)

If all we affirmed was the First Four Ecumenical Councils, then there would be very little need for us (Reformed folk) to object to documents like Evangelicals/Catholics Together or movements like Federal Vision, since they would do the same.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 1, 2009)

*Warfield*

Nathan, I think you would be interested in B.B. Warfield's soteriological taxonomy, _The Plan of Salvation_. His introduction goes something like this. There are two broad approaches to salvation - naturalism (auto-soterism) and supernaturalism. Warfield places Pelagianism and Remonstrant Arminianism within the naturalistic camp. Within supernaturalism, the belief that salvation is the work of God and not man, there is sacerdotalism and evangelicalism. Warfield places the Anglican, Roman, and Orthodox churches in the sacerdotal group. Within evangelicalism, the idea that God savingly acts on the individual apart from sacraments, there are still more subgroups. Warfield places Wesleyans and Lutherans in the evangelical group, so at least in his mind, there is a sort of generic unity despite the differences among evangelicals.


----------



## steadfast7 (Dec 1, 2009)

See, sometimes we think that if we were "reduced" to the first 4 councils, we would become shallow, but that's not necessarily so. I think that if I had the faith of Athanasius, I don't think I'd have much reason to pity myself. No one thinks of Athanasius and his era and says, "Poor, ignorant fools!"


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 1, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Would you say that there is, _generally speaking_, underneath the (very- important-and-not-to-be-swept-under-any-rug) theological disagreements between Calvinists and Arminians, Presbyterians, episcopals, and indies, covenentals and Dispensationalists, confessionals and non-confessionals, etc., _one common evangelical faith_ among, for lack of a better term, 'conservative (and/or) evangelical Protestants'? That is, is there a _basic evangelical orthodoxy_ linking these often wildly diverse and at-each-others-throats groups (where, even if, say, the Calvinist believes the typical Arminian to be in serious error, he cannot say that he is in _heresy_, crossing that line of basic evangelical orthodoxy)?



The First Four Ecumenical Councils, the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration.

Here is a link to the Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

Here is a link to the confession of faith "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration":

Ligonier Ministries | The Gospel of Christ


----------



## Herald (Dec 1, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> So you can have a John MacArthur, Joel Osteen, John Yoder, R.C. Sproul, and James Boice all claiming to be "evangelical."



This is why words mean things. I don't feel comfortable referring to myself as an evangelical of any persuasion.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 1, 2009)

Oh, didn't you know? We already voted you out of membership at the pan-evangelical assembly jointly held in Wheaton/Colorado Springs. The vote was close though: the open theists, radical egalitarianists, partial inerrantists, emergents, and almost 50% of the snake handlers were unwilling to see you kicked out without due process. If it wasn't for the Piper junkies and Rick Warrenistas, you would have made it.


----------

