Evangelical & Reformed

[scottmaciver]

What if any do you understand to be the differences between the terms evangelical and reformed?

Blessings

 

[Steve Curtis]

There was some discussion of this on a previous thread.

 

[Kevin]

Evangelical refers to a non-mainline, protestant, that is conservative in theology (classically defined i.e. contra modernism or liberalism), that believes in the act or process of conversion. May also be used in conjunction with a mainline denominational title to distinguish a more conservative member of that tradition. i.e. "evangelical Anglican"

Reformed refers to holding to, or being a member of a church that holds to the doctrines of the reformation.

 

[jogri17]

I call myself Reformed, therefore I define what Reformed is.

 

[JBaldwin]

I once was an evangelical, but now I'm reformed

 

[N. Eshelman]

They USED to be synonymous.

 

[Scott1]

Here is Lesson 2 of "What is Reformed Theology?", still free on-line at the Ligionier web site. It is titled, "Catholic, Evangelical and Reformed":

What Is Reformed Theology? Teaching Series by Dr. R.C. Sproul | Watch and Listen to Reformed Theology Teaching Series at Ligonier.org

In this generation, it is helpful to distinguish between "reformed" and "broadly evangelical" because the former means:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + Covenant theology + Confession

whereas the latter does not mean them. It means at least one of these elements:

Arminian-influenced + Dispensational + No Confession

This was not true historically, as Protestant was synonymous with "Evangelical" (recovering the "Evangel" (gospel). Now, it is more a subset of shared beliefs.

That is "reformed" shares things in common with the church universal (catholic), and "evangelicals," but also holds the above historic distinctives.

There are other aspects that are implicit in "reformed" that are no longer commonly held amongst "broadly evangelical" communions, e.g. a "high" view of the church, church discipline, etc.

 

[Jack K]

In this generation, it is helpful to distinguish between "reformed" and "broadly evangelical" because the former means:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + Covenant theology + Confession

whereas the latter does not mean them. It means at least one of these elements:

Arminian-influenced + Dispensational + No Confession

In my mind, "evangelical" might mean Arminian-influenced or dispensational or no confession, but not necessarily. So in my mind, reformed churches that still hold to a high view of the gospel ("evangel") and salvation in Christ are evangelical.

Of course, everyone's definition of "evangelical" is different. Many even attach political or cultural labels to it. That's the problem. A pity, because I like the word as it reminds us that our identity is wrapped up in the Good News that is ours in Jesus.

 

[jjraby]

What about the EPC? would that not be an instance of them being synonymous? I know a lot of people here think the EPC is not really reformed. I might agree on some points of that, but still.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

In my view, evangelical is broader than reformed. But the reformed faith is evangelical. Nor do I specifically associate evangelical with "non-mainline" as Kevin postulated. E.g. both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic Baptists could be considered evangelical and mainline. I consider the PCA as mainline, evangelical, and reformed.

Maybe it can be roughly equated to conservative, Bible-believing protestant. But the term is losing its historical meaning. Especially with terms like Evangelical Catholic which seems to me an oxymoron.

 

[Scott1]

In this generation, it is helpful to distinguish between "reformed" and "broadly evangelical" because the former means:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + Covenant theology + Confession

whereas the latter does not mean them. It means at least one of these elements:

Arminian-influenced + Dispensational + No Confession

In my mind, "evangelical" might mean Arminian-influenced or dispensational or no confession, but not necessarily. So in my mind, reformed churches that still hold to a high view of the gospel ("evangel") and salvation in Christ are evangelical.

Of course, everyone's definition of "evangelical" is different. Many even attach political or cultural labels to it. That's the problem. A pity, because I like the word as it reminds us that our identity is wrapped up in the Good News that is ours in Jesus.

Yes, reformed churches are "evangelical" in the sense of holding to the historic "evangel" (gospel), that's what Dr. Sproul's lesson 2, above builds on.

But that is only a subset of reformed theology.

While we might generically refer to every communion that holds to a biblical gospel as "evangelical," the point is that reformed goes beyond that to include what are, in this generation, distinctives- e.g. the five points, covenant theology, and a binding, confessed theology (Confession).

Reformed even holds some things in common with the church catholic (which would include the Roman church), but it is very important to distinguish beyond those, to form a complete biblically informed view of Christian faith and practice.

As communions fall away from biblical historic orthodoxy in doctrine and practice in this generation, it becomes important to distinguish them.

That's what reformed theology does.

Not so with what are termed "broadly evangelical" communions, as contrast with reformed ones.

Some communions are trying to "define down" reformed in our generation, to make the doctrines and practice lose their meaning. They are doing this by not holding to the five points of Calvinism, covenant theology, and a Confession.

Some would do this by having a majority influence Calvinism at a given point in time, but not in a binding confessional way, and not holding a confessed covenant theology.

Others are doing this by mixing up a three or four point "Calvinism" (which is not "Calvinism" at all).

They may some aspects of reformed theology, they may even be trending that way, but without the doctrines and practice, they are not reformed... not yet.

 

[N. Eshelman]

In this generation, it is helpful to distinguish between "reformed" and "broadly evangelical" because the former means:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + Covenant theology + Confession

whereas the latter does not mean them. It means at least one of these elements:

Arminian-influenced + Dispensational + No Confession

In my mind, "evangelical" might mean Arminian-influenced or dispensational or no confession, but not necessarily. So in my mind, reformed churches that still hold to a high view of the gospel ("evangel") and salvation in Christ are evangelical.

Of course, everyone's definition of "evangelical" is different. Many even attach political or cultural labels to it. That's the problem. A pity, because I like the word as it reminds us that our identity is wrapped up in the Good News that is ours in Jesus.

Yes, reformed churches are "evangelical" in the sense of holding to the historic "evangel" (gospel), that's what Dr. Sproul's lesson 2, above builds on.

But that is only a subset of reformed theology.

While we might generically refer to every communion that holds to a biblical gospel as "evangelical," the point is that reformed goes beyond that to include what are, in this generation, distinctives- e.g. the five points, covenant theology, and a binding, confessed theology (Confession).

Reformed even holds some things in common with the church catholic (which would include the Roman church), but it is very important to distinguish beyond those, to form a complete biblically informed view of Christian faith and practice.

As communions fall away from biblical historic orthodoxy in doctrine and practice in this generation, it becomes important to distinguish them.

That's what reformed theology does.

Not so with what are termed "broadly evangelical" communions, as contrast with reformed ones.

Some communions are trying to "define down" reformed in our generation, to make the doctrines and practice lose their meaning. They are doing this by not holding to the five points of Calvinism, covenant theology, and a Confession.

Some would do this by having a majority influence Calvinism at a given point in time, but not in a binding confessional way, and not holding a confessed covenant theology.

Others are doing this by mixing up a three or four point "Calvinism" (which is not "Calvinism" at all).

They may some aspects of reformed theology, they may even be trending that way, but without the doctrines and practice, they are not reformed... not yet.

Even the term Reformed has lost some of it's meaning- the PC(USA); RCA; parts of the CRC; and other branches of the reformed faith will not hold to all of these distinctives the way that many on this board would. Personally, I believe that Confessional is the standard of what makes someone reformed. You can hold to the 5 points, and still not be confessional. Many evangelicals have taken on a reformed soteriology (which is a GREAT thing, of course) and still are not reformed. Historically the Reformed are confessional- all of them.

 

[Jack K]

In this generation, it is helpful to distinguish between "reformed" and "broadly evangelical" because the former means:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + Covenant theology + Confession

whereas the latter does not mean them. It means at least one of these elements:

Arminian-influenced + Dispensational + No Confession

In my mind, "evangelical" might mean Arminian-influenced or dispensational or no confession, but not necessarily. So in my mind, reformed churches that still hold to a high view of the gospel ("evangel") and salvation in Christ are evangelical.

Of course, everyone's definition of "evangelical" is different. Many even attach political or cultural labels to it. That's the problem. A pity, because I like the word as it reminds us that our identity is wrapped up in the Good News that is ours in Jesus.

Yes, reformed churches are "evangelical" in the sense of holding to the historic "evangel" (gospel), that's what Dr. Sproul's lesson 2, above builds on.

But that is only a subset of reformed theology.

While we might generically refer to every communion that holds to a biblical gospel as "evangelical," the point is that reformed goes beyond that to include what are, in this generation, distinctives- e.g. the five points, covenant theology, and a binding, confessed theology (Confession).

Reformed even holds some things in common with the church catholic (which would include the Roman church), but it is very important to distinguish beyond those, to form a complete biblically informed view of Christian faith and practice.

As communions fall away from biblical historic orthodoxy in doctrine and practice in this generation, it becomes important to distinguish them.

That's what reformed theology does.

Not so with what are termed "broadly evangelical" communions, as contrast with reformed ones.

Some communions are trying to "define down" reformed in our generation, to make the doctrines and practice lose their meaning. They are doing this by not holding to the five points of Calvinism, covenant theology, and a Confession.

Some would do this by having a majority influence Calvinism at a given point in time, but not in a binding confessional way, and not holding a confessed covenant theology.

Others are doing this by mixing up a three or four point "Calvinism" (which is not "Calvinism" at all).

They may some aspects of reformed theology, they may even be trending that way, but without the doctrines and practice, they are not reformed... not yet.

Agreed on all of that. Clearly "reformed" entails many good and necessary things not covered by what is merely "evangelical." My point is just that "evangelical," in the pure Gospel-centered sense of the word, does not necessarily include error and remains a good and necessary part of "reformed." I'm not willing to concede to that Arminian-infuenced, dispensational crowd sole possession of such a great word.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

Even the term Reformed has lost some of it's meaning- the PC(USA); RCA; parts of the CRC; and other branches of the reformed faith will not hold to all of these distinctives the way that many on this board would. Personally, I believe that Confessional is the standard of what makes someone reformed. You can hold to the 5 points, and still not be confessional. Many evangelicals have taken on a reformed soteriology (which is a GREAT thing, of course) and still are not reformed. Historically the Reformed are confessional- all of them.

I tend to think of the PC(USA), RCA and CRC as part of the "reformed" family but not "evangelical." I realize that using the terms that way does cause "reformed" to lose much of its meaning, but it's the way I tend to think. And I tend to think of non-confessional but reformed in soteriology churches as "Calvinistic." But as you mentioned, many of them use "reformed." All these terms have become a mess.

 

[Scott1]

In this generation, it is helpful to distinguish between "reformed" and "broadly evangelical" because the former means:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + Covenant theology + Confession

whereas the latter does not mean them. It means at least one of these elements:

Arminian-influenced + Dispensational + No Confession

In my mind, "evangelical" might mean Arminian-influenced or dispensational or no confession, but not necessarily. So in my mind, reformed churches that still hold to a high view of the gospel ("evangel") and salvation in Christ are evangelical.

Of course, everyone's definition of "evangelical" is different. Many even attach political or cultural labels to it. That's the problem. A pity, because I like the word as it reminds us that our identity is wrapped up in the Good News that is ours in Jesus.

Yes, reformed churches are "evangelical" in the sense of holding to the historic "evangel" (gospel), that's what Dr. Sproul's lesson 2, above builds on.

But that is only a subset of reformed theology.

While we might generically refer to every communion that holds to a biblical gospel as "evangelical," the point is that reformed goes beyond that to include what are, in this generation, distinctives- e.g. the five points, covenant theology, and a binding, confessed theology (Confession).

Reformed even holds some things in common with the church catholic (which would include the Roman church), but it is very important to distinguish beyond those, to form a complete biblically informed view of Christian faith and practice.

As communions fall away from biblical historic orthodoxy in doctrine and practice in this generation, it becomes important to distinguish them.

That's what reformed theology does.

Not so with what are termed "broadly evangelical" communions, as contrast with reformed ones.

Some communions are trying to "define down" reformed in our generation, to make the doctrines and practice lose their meaning. They are doing this by not holding to the five points of Calvinism, covenant theology, and a Confession.

Some would do this by having a majority influence Calvinism at a given point in time, but not in a binding confessional way, and not holding a confessed covenant theology.

Others are doing this by mixing up a three or four point "Calvinism" (which is not "Calvinism" at all).

They may some aspects of reformed theology, they may even be trending that way, but without the doctrines and practice, they are not reformed... not yet.

Even the term Reformed has lost some of it's meaning- the PC(USA); RCA; parts of the CRC; and other branches of the reformed faith will not hold to all of these distinctives the way that many on this board would. Personally, I believe that Confessional is the standard of what makes someone reformed. You can hold to the 5 points, and still not be confessional. Many evangelicals have taken on a reformed soteriology (which is a GREAT thing, of course) and still are not reformed. Historically the Reformed are confessional- all of them.

Yes,

and this illustrates in another way that all communions that claim to be "reformed" are not necessarily so, because they do not hold to a binding, accountable confessed.... Confession of Faith.

The mainline denomination has fallen away from holding the Westminster Confession, for example, and substituted unclear shifting, subjective notions of confessed theology with such thing as "authoritative interpretation" and other inventions.

The "Confession" part meaning, a binding, accountable confession of doctrine, as standard- one with the theology of historic Protestantism.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Jack K
My point is just that "evangelical," in the pure Gospel-centered sense of the word, does not necessarily include error and remains a good and necessary part of "reformed."

Right, it is a good word, and, as we are using the term, it is part of reformed theology, because the evangel is a basic part of reformed theology.

The distinction is between "broadly evangelical" communions that may be biblical on the gospel (e.g Calvinism and the five solas), but wrong on dispensationalism, and have a "low" view of the church expressed by NOT having a binding confession, but rather a notion that each person independently arbitrates doctrine on their own, conditionally participating in the church, based on that arbitration at a given point in time.

So, a church may practically hold to a "five point" soteriology, but have no binding confession as basis for the peace and purity of the communion. That would mean implicitly, no church discipline. Members, Pastors would come and go based upon majority opinion being three, four or five point Calvinism at a given time.

Unfortunately, this is the modus operendi in many churches categorized as "broadly evangelical" in our generation, but would not be characteristic of a reformed one.

A key principle of reformed theology is that the unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement, and "confession" is part of that.

 

[Austin]

A few thoughts:

1) Depending upon where you go, the EPC is solidly Reformed. But then again, if you go to places that grew out of the UPCUSA, then not so much.

2) "Evangelical" and "Reformed" have vastly different meanings in the so-called "Mainline" denominations. (I hesitate to call them "churches" anymore...) According to some in the PCUSA, for instance, "Evangelical" means "committed to growing churches." But of course, this could mean growing them by serving communion to dogs. Others in that denomination (liberals) use the word "Reformed" to mean "raising a moistened finger into the cultural winds & reforming the church accordingly." On the flip side, 'conservative' PCUSA folks say that they are "Reformed," but by this they mean "Evangelical." (For instance, the New Wineskins folks have a document titled "The Essential Tenets of the Reformed Faith" that is nothing more than a statement of bare bones gospel religion. By contrast, the EPC has an almost identical document titled "The Essentials of Our Faith" that is meant to be a lowest-common-denominator statement of what it means to be a Christian. This is one of the biggest problems we "Reformed Evangelicals" have in assimilating the influx of churches form the PCUSA via the New Wineskins group...)

3) I agree with Scott's assessment earlier, except that I don't think "Evangelical" must include noon-Reformed elements. However, in common parlance I believe that what most people think of when you say "Evangelical" is a church that is Arminian, Finneyite, Dispensational, low church, Republican, culture warrior, America's Godly heritage, etc.

4) B/c of the confusion people have with the terms "Evangelical" and "Calvinistic," I tend to default to describing myself as merely "Reformed" if someone wants me to put myself in a box. (Of course, one benefit of this is that hardly anyone out in the world knows what this means, so it avoids messy misidentifications.)

Just my 2 cents...