Evangelical Theology as Contrasted with other Christian Theology

[mark kennedy]

I'm not here to define what it means and how it is different, I'm trying to open up a discussion of what it means to others. I happened upon a Websters definition once, it went, 'An attempt to have ones thoughts begin and end with the Scriptures', I just liked it. Of course our Catholic and Orthodox brethren have other ideas with regards to ecclesiastical authority and tradition. Many Protestants would not consider themselves evangelical at least with regards to church organization and various theological points of interest.

What I'm hoping to do with this thread is to learn what others think of evangelical thinking, good or ill. If you happen to be interested in a formal debate of Calvinism or Evangelical theology just let me know and I'll open a proposal thread in the Debate Forum.

Other then that feel free to elaborate at will and I do hope we can discuss certain points I think are vital:

• Apostolic authority represented in the New Testament
• Our collective Hebrew Legacy (both Levetical and Prophetic), represented in the Old Testament.
• Tradition and Ecclesiastical authority as it relates to the testimony of Scripture.
• How this pertains to the local church and individual believer.

I'm not fishing for a debate but I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues formally if you are so inclined. What I'm most interested in is people who would like to elaborate on what they think of Evangelical Theology and what you perceive that to be.

Just let me ask one thing tentatively, and don't think I've overlooked the fact that I have failed to do so here. Define your terms because much of this is largely philosophical.

I just want an open and honest discussion, I'm here to learn.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have never understood what exactly is meant by Evangelical. It seems such a broad term, encompassing such varied views. I mean, you can argue Methodist and Baptists are Evangelical, but the same argument is made for low church Anglicans. Where do old-fashioned Reformed Churches fit in?
To me, Evangelical means "of the gospel", and has historically been used for other churches and other uses. Donne speaks of 'evangelical men', which clearly is not referencing this quasi-ecumenical/pan-protestant entity that is so common in the US. It is not a common term where I am from, at all. We tend to speak of Protestantism as a whole, and then the individual churches, like Dutch Reformed, Methodist, Anglican, etc.

It seems to stress being Born-Again, a central message of Justification by faith and repentance. A complete changes from one point, like a new Baptism. This seems to be coupled by a firm belief in a definitive salvation, which cannot be lost once had, and never existed if lost. It also seems to stress Poenal Substitution Atonement, from what I can see.

Now all of these things are good Protestant themes, but the borders of what is or is not Evangelical versus just Protestant is quite blurred. Some ideas perhaps, taken further here than others.

Perhaps it would be easier to first define what you consider specifically Evangelical, in order that it may be contrasted to other views. This is especially a problem with Protestantism, for when is something merely Protestant and when explicitly Evangelical?

 

[HereIStand]

As far as "Apostolic authority represented in the New Testament," this is a key passage,
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24, ESV)

The apostles (which would ultimately include Paul) were witness not only of Christ's resurrection and the message of salvation, but they were witnesses of the knowledge gained from having their minds opened "to understand the Scriptures." So, while Church fathers can shed light on this knowledge, they were not privy to it firsthand. Hence, Scripture itself (not extra-Biblical tradition) is our final authority.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have never understood what exactly is meant by Evangelical. It seems such a broad term, encompassing such varied views. I mean, you can argue Methodist and Baptists are Evangelical, but the same argument is made for low church Anglicans. Where do old-fashioned Reformed Churches fit in?
To me, Evangelical means "of the gospel", and has historically been used for other churches and other uses. Donne speaks of 'evangelical men', which clearly is not referencing this quasi-ecumenical/pan-protestant entity that is so common in the US. It is not a common term where I am from, at all. We tend to speak of Protestantism as a whole, and then the individual churches, like Dutch Reformed, Methodist, Anglican, etc.

It seems to stress being Born-Again, a central message of Justification by faith and repentance. A complete changes from one point, like a new Baptism. This seems to be coupled by a firm belief in a definitive salvation, which cannot be lost once had, and never existed if lost. It also seems to stress Poenal Substitution Atonement, from what I can see.

Now all of these things are good Protestant themes, but the borders of what is or is not Evangelical versus just Protestant is quite blurred.

Perhaps it would be easier to first define what you consider specifically Evangelical, in order that it may be contrasted to other views. This is especially a problem with Protestantism, for when is something merely Protestant and when explicitly Evangelical?

I thought that would come up early so here goes. Evangelical is synonymous with the gospel and ultimately related to the testimony of Scripture. Evangelical and Evangelism look a lot alike because they are a lot the same thing, the 'good news', is that Jesus died for your sins. Where evangelical theology is different from, say, fundamentalism, is that the whole testimony of Scripture is seen as applicable and relevant to the Christian walk. The whole testimony of Scripture is preferred and central as opposed to various doctrines simply based on Scripture. The phrase, 'starting with and ending with Scripture', is the idea that any subject matter can be related from and to Scripture. It has been my experience that evangelicals are typically interested in a broad range of subjects but always the foundational beliefs are Biblical.

Protestantism is an attempt at a reform of the New Testament church, just as Christ and the Apostles was a reformation of Hebrew Judaism for the Gentiles and New Testament Jews. Evangelical in my mind is rooted and grounded in Scripture, all Apostolic authority going back to Christ and the Apostles as expressed in the New Testament church.

At one time, they called evangelical churches 'word churches', because of their emphasis on the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

As far as "Apostolic authority represented in the New Testament," this is a key passage,
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24, ESV)

The apostles (which would ultimately include Paul) were witness not only of Christ's resurrection and the message of salvation, but they were witnesses of the knowledge gained from having their minds opened "to understand the Scriptures." So, while Church fathers can shed light on this knowledge, they were not privy to it firsthand. Hence, Scripture itself (not extra-Biblical tradition) is our final authority.

Well you will get no argument from me but the Apostles didn't have the benefit of the New Testament, they were largely responsible for producing it. Churches claim apostolic authority all the time, claiming as an example that the Catholic church originally approved the New Testament anyway. The idea of evangelical is that the Scriptures can be related to almost anything, I'm just wondering if that's just my perception or something inherent in the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[HereIStand]

Well you will get no argument from me but the Apostles didn't have the benefit of the New Testament, they were largely responsible for producing it. Churches claim apostolic authority all the time, claiming as an example that the Catholic church originally approved the New Testament anyway. The idea of evangelical is that the Scriptures can be related to almost anything, I'm just wondering if that's just my perception or something inherent in the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As I see it, the evangelical view is that the Scriptures apply to life, and any portion of it. Perhaps there's a danger in being too glib in making applications. It's better though than believing that the Scriptures apply to big questions, but are remote from everyday experience.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I see it, the evangelical view is that the Scriptures apply to life, and any portion of it. Perhaps there's a danger in being too glib in making applications. It's better though than believing that the Scriptures apply to big questions, but are remote from everyday experience.

So the the question for me is how does evangelical theology differ from other Christian ways of looking at things? How could we apply the Scriptures to an issue involving the mentally ill...or I don't know...how we propose Heath Care Reform. The Scriptures have an existential quality so I'm wondering how an evangelical perspective, Bible based I mean, could be used to inform an understanding of other intellectual pursuits or would we be better served by ecclesiastical authority or secular for that matter. Just a thought.

 

[mkgal1]

This seems to be coupled by a firm belief in a definitive salvation, which cannot be lost once had, and never existed if lost. It also seems to stress Penal Substitution Atonement, from what I can see.

Now all of these things are good Protestant themes, but the borders of what is or is not Evangelical versus just Protestant is quite blurred.

I agree that when "evangelical" is used.....that's typically the belief-system that's being referred to. Like you also said....the definition gets pretty blurred. The beliefs you brought up, though (atonement theories and theories of salvation) do seem to be pretty foundational for a person's/church's overall pattern of theology.....wouldn't you say?

 

[HereIStand]

So the the question for me is how does evangelical theology differ from other Christian ways of looking at things? How could we apply the Scriptures to an issue involving the mentally ill...or I don't know...how we propose Heath Care Reform. The Scriptures have an existential quality so I'm wondering how an evangelical perspective, Bible based I mean, could be used to inform an understanding of other intellectual pursuits or would we be better served by ecclesiastical authority or secular for that matter. Just a thought.

It doesn't mean that Scripture is the only authority on everything, but that it speaks to all of life. It doesn't mean that knowledge shouldn't be pursued from a secular perspective also. It should. How would this differ from other Christian ways of looking at things? I'm not sure. My sense is that other Christian perspectives would restrict knowledge gained from Scripture to what can not be known through natural theology. This is (I think) the approach of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles.

 

[mkgal1]

So the the question for me is how does evangelical theology differ from other Christian ways of looking at things? How could we apply the Scriptures to an issue involving the mentally ill...or I don't know...how we propose Heath Care Reform. The Scriptures have an existential quality so I'm wondering how an evangelical perspective, Bible based I mean, could be used to inform an understanding of other intellectual pursuits or would we be better served by ecclesiastical authority or secular for that matter. Just a thought.

I'm not quite sure if I'm understanding your question....but here's an example of how an Episcopal church interprets Scripture and our "mission" as Christians:

Let’s set the scene for today’s Gospel. In previous chapters, Matthew demonstrates how by word and deed Jesus is working pretty hard so that people may learn who He is. Before Chapter 11, He has taught the crowds with His Sermon on the Mount. He has healed the centurion’s slave, the paralytic, two blind men and many others, cleansed a leper, and cast out demons. This is all intended by Matthew to constitute a call to discipleship; a call to take up the work that the Savior did in this world that was so much in need of hearing what Jesus had to say. He had come, after all, to a world in great need of healing, love and care. Yet, Matthew is observing that so many of his contemporaries preferred to sit on the sidelines, uninvolved in the message to continue the work Christ had begun.

There are three aspects or dimensions of what we are being asked to do in today’s Gospel. The first is the call to take up Jesus’ yoke. The second is to learn from Him. And the third is to find rest and peace for our souls in this earthly life.

So firstly, Matthew is telling the people of his day, and today tells us that Jesus is calling us to be attentive over all the other desires, pressures and voices of this world: “Come to me, take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” It sounds like there are really two parts to this call; it sounds like Jesus is inviting us to rest for a while in some of the words that He says, and at the same time there is this taking up of His yoke, His cause, His purpose, Jesus’ ministry. It is most important here to remember whose yoke or cause that we are called to take up. It is Jesus’ yoke. In other words, we risk taking up in our lives so many of the yokes and burdens of the world that have nothing to do with faith or eternal life, and we let them be the burdens we choose to bear, instead of the yoke of Jesus. Just as a farmer’s yoke could hook a number of animals together, so they would work and pull together and be more powerful, Jesus’ yoke, His mission, does that same thing for believers. It draws us and binds us together to carry out the mission to speak His message of life, love and salvation, and to carry out this mission in deeds of healing, caring and providing for others.

In my experience.....that mission doesn't seem to be consistent in ALL Christian denominations. Even when I post about concern for others (such as the sick and poor) here, on CF, I get criticism for being a social justice warrior (and I have no idea why that's a bad thing in Christian circles). Is *that* what your question is about?

 

[mkgal1]

Since the definition is so blurry---if we're speaking to an individual, it's always best to ask that person about *their* beliefs (I think) instead of trying to fit them into a stereotypical box of doctrine, though.

 

[redleghunter]

The Scriptures have an existential quality so I'm wondering how an evangelical perspective, Bible based I mean, could be used to inform an understanding of other intellectual pursuits or would we be better served by ecclesiastical authority or secular for that matter. Just a thought.

I would gather the Evangelical perspective is very much the same as the Reformed on these matters.

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.

Westminster Confession Chapter 1.6

 

[redleghunter]

How could we apply the Scriptures to an issue involving the mentally ill...or I don't know...how we propose Heath Care Reform.

There's plenty of Scriptures showing compassion to those who are sick, the widow and orphan. Those scriptures would apply.

 

[redleghunter]

Is *that* what you're question is about?

Good work. Yes that seems to be the actual OP.

 

[PloverWing]

There's obviously not an Evangelical equivalent of the papacy -- there's no single person or office who can speak for all Evangelicals -- but there are a number of organizations that are good representatives of Evangelicalism, with their own statements of faith. There's some variation, but there's a lot of agreement between the various statements. Here are some:

The statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals: https://www.nae.net/statement-of-faith/

The statement of faith of the National Black Evangelical Association: Statement of Faith | National Black Evangelical Association

The statement of faith of Christianity Today: Our Beliefs

The statement of faith of Fuller Theological Seminary: Statement of Faith

The statement of faith of Wheaton College: Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose | Wheaton

The statement of faith of Gordon College: Statement of Faith - Gordon College

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf . This addresses just one portion of Evangelical theology, but inerrancy is an issue that is important to Evangelicals, and that they have considered at length and defined very carefully.

 

[Hank77]

This seems to be coupled by a firm belief in a definitive salvation, which cannot be lost once had, and never existed if lost

Evangelicals come down on both sides of this. Some are OSAS and some are not. Baptists often are, Pentecostals usually are not.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I thought that would come up early so here goes. Evangelical is synonymous with the gospel and ultimately related to the testimony of Scripture. Evangelical and Evangelism look a lot alike because they are a lot the same thing, the 'good news', is that Jesus died for your sins. Where evangelical theology is different from, say, fundamentalism, is that the whole testimony of Scripture is seen as applicable and relevant to the Christian walk. The whole testimony of Scripture is preferred and central as opposed to various doctrines simply based on Scripture. The phrase, 'starting with and ending with Scripture', is the idea that any subject matter can be related from and to Scripture. It has been my experience that evangelicals are typically interested in a broad range of subjects but always the foundational beliefs are Biblical.

Protestantism is an attempt at a reform of the New Testament church, just as Christ and the Apostles was a reformation of Hebrew Judaism for the Gentiles and New Testament Jews. Evangelical in my mind is rooted and grounded in Scripture, all Apostolic authority going back to Christ and the Apostles as expressed in the New Testament church.

At one time, they called evangelical churches 'word churches', because of their emphasis on the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Isn't this just a roundabout way of saying Sola Scriptura?

How much theological extrapolation is allowed from a biblical base as well? Catholics extrapolated Papal Supremacy from a single statement of Jesus, and the treatment of being Born Again here seems to go quite a bit beyond the words of Jesus to Nicodemus.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

As far as "Apostolic authority represented in the New Testament," this is a key passage,
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24, ESV)

The apostles (which would ultimately include Paul) were witness not only of Christ's resurrection and the message of salvation, but they were witnesses of the knowledge gained from having their minds opened "to understand the Scriptures." So, while Church fathers can shed light on this knowledge, they were not privy to it firsthand. Hence, Scripture itself (not extra-Biblical tradition) is our final authority.

Great point which will cause me to go on a tangent, but I think it's related to the OP.

"Witnessing" as it's often referred to, is the telling HIS story, not ours. the Bible is not about me. It's about Him. There is a place for us to testify as to what Christ has done for us, but the bulk of your "witness" should be regarding His work on our behalf.

 

[redleghunter]

How much theological extrapolation is allowed from a biblical base as well? Catholics extrapolated Papal Supremacy from a single statement of Jesus, and the treatment of being Born Again here seems to go quite a bit beyond the words of Jesus to Nicodemus.

It's more than the conversation with Nicodemus. Born again, born from above, born of God, spiritual regeneration is seen throughout the NT:

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Ephesians 2:4-5
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

1 Peter 1:23-25
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER " And this is the word which was preached to you.

John 3:5-8
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

1 John 5:1
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

1 John 5:4
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.

And of course as a Lutheran you would know:

"At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open."-Martin Luther

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It's more than the conversation with Nicodemus. Born again, born from above, born of God, spiritual regeneration is seen throughout the NT:

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Ephesians 2:4-5
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

1 Peter 1:23-25
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER " And this is the word which was preached to you.

John 3:5-8
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

1 John 5:1
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

1 John 5:4
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.

And of course as a Lutheran you would know:

"At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open."-Martin Luther

As I said before, these are good Protestant themes, but the stress placed on being 'born-again' seems a bit farther than I am used to. I did not really connect the idea with all those verses, but if you see it in that light, it does have quite a bit of scriptural support.

I am Dutch Reformed, by the way, not Lutheran.