what is "Evangelical Free"?

[childofdust]

So I've noticed a number of churches popping up which call themselves "Evangelical Free." I have no idea what that is other than that they are 1. clearly Protestant 2. a loose association of individual churches (no central authority), and 3. a rather new thing historically.

I'm just wondering... what's the deal?

 

[St_Worm2]

We're Evangelical and we don't tithe, thus Evangelical Free ..

 

[St_Worm2]

Just kidd'n. Check us out at www.efca.org, our history and our statement of faith, etc.

Our most famous pastor is Chuck Swindoll, and TEDS, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is our University and Seminary.

Hope that helps a bit.

-David

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Evangelical Free denomination has its origins in Sweden during the nineteenth century when certain Christians broke away from the state Lutheran church and formed free (that is, free from government control) churches. Because these were not Catholic churches, but were Protestant churches they were labelled as Evangelical, which is the standard European term for Protestant.

There are two primary denominations here in the U.S. which stem from this movement - the Evangelical Free denomination and the Evangelical Covenant demonimation. Both stress congregational autonomy. As a result, there is a larger diversity of belief in them than is typically found in most denominations.

The Evangelical Free denomination is relatively Arminian in its doctrine, having attained many of its members from the United Methodist Church. Its most popular preacher is Chuck Swindoll, as noted in the above post.

 

[Tangible]

They started out as Lutheran Pietists, eventually shedding all vestiges of Sacramental theology, and in the US are indistinguishable from most American Evangelicals.

 

[ptomwebster]

...eventually shedding all vestiges of Sacramental theology, and in the US are indistinguishable from most American Evangelicals.

That part certainly isn't true.

 

[Tangible]

Prove me wrong.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That part certainly isn't true.

I agree with Tangible. Please show us where he is mistaken.

 

[ptomwebster]

"eventually shedding all vestiges of Sacramental theology,"

My Covenant Book of Worship has services for both Baptism and Communion. Part of the reason I left that denomination is they wanted me to baptize both infants and adult and I would not baptize infants.


From EFCA Statement of Faith:
http://www.efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

The Church
7. We believe that the true church comprises all who have been justified by God’s grace through faith alone in Christ alone. They are united by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, of which He is the Head. The true church is manifest in local churches, whose membership should be composed only of believers. The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"eventually shedding all vestiges of Sacramental theology,"

My Covenant Book of Worship has services for both Baptism and Communion. Part of the reason I left that denomination is they wanted me to baptize both infants and adult and I would not baptize infants.


From EFCA Statement of Faith:
http://www.efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

The Church
7. We believe that the true church comprises all who have been justified by God’s grace through faith alone in Christ alone. They are united by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, of which He is the Head. The true church is manifest in local churches, whose membership should be composed only of believers. The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer.

I think you might be misunderstanding what Tangible means by the term "sacramental theology". Baptizing infants is done in many churches which have nothing to do with sacramental theology. Zwinglian theoloogy is quite pervasive in many churches which do baptize infants and practice communion. The difference is that in sacramental theology there is distinct belief in the value of the sacrament in imparting grace to the recipient. Lutherans view the sacraments as "means of grace" although they would be quick to deny that the sacraments, in and of themselves, impart grace. Tangible can expand on this idea, if he wishes. The Zwinglian view of communion is that it is a memorial (remembrance) commanded by Christ in which the bread and the cup remind the believer on His sacrifice on Calvary, but do not serve as a "means of grace." Likewise, the baptism of infants is seen as being either a type of dedication of the baby to God or as a recognition by the congregation of its responsibilities in helping to raise the child in a Christian church. In England, there is also a strong view that infant baptism is the means of christening (naming) the child with its proper Christian name.

In my interaction with the E Free churches (which has not been too extensive, I will admit) I have not detected a sacramental understanding of either baptism or communion.

On a side note, my brother belongs to an Evangelical Covenant church which does not baptize infants, even though the denomination does, as a whole. The congregations in the Evangelical Covenant denomination seem to have a greater level of autonomy than those in the E Free denomination.

 

[ptomwebster]

I think you might be misunderstanding what Tangible means by the term "sacramental theology". Baptizing infants is done in many churches which have nothing to do with sacramental theology. Zwinglian theoloogy is quite pervasive in many churches which do baptize infants and practice communion. The difference is that in sacramental theology there is distinct belief in the value of the sacrament in imparting grace to the recipient. Lutherans view the sacraments as "means of grace" although they would be quick to deny that the sacraments, in and of themselves, impart grace. Tangible can expand on this idea, if he wishes. The Zwinglian view of communion is that it is a memorial (remembrance) commanded by Christ in which the bread and the cup remind the believer on His sacrifice on Calvary, but do not serve as a "means of grace." Likewise, the baptism of infants is seen as being either a type of dedication of the baby to God or as a recognition by the congregation of its responsibilities in helping to raise the child in a Christian church. In England, there is also a strong view that infant baptism is the means of christening (naming) the child with its proper Christian name.

In my interaction with the E Free churches (which has not been too extensive, I will admit) I have not detected a sacramental understanding of either baptism or communion.

On a side note, my brother belongs to an Evangelical Covenant church which does not baptize infants, even though the denomination does, as a whole. The congregations in the Evangelical Covenant denomination seem to have a greater level of autonomy than those in the E Free denomination.

It might not be your "sacramental theology" but it is a "sacramental theology." You can define it any way you want and so will I.

I spent 55 years in the Evangelical Covenant church. I have a BA from their University and an M Div. from their Seminary. I was also ordained in the ECC. I know their history.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It might not be your "sacramental theology" but it is a "sacramental theology." You can define it any way you want and so will I.

I spent 55 years in the Evangelical Covenant church. I have a BA from their University and an M Div. from their Seminary. I was also ordained in the ECC. I know their history.

I do not disagree that you know far more about their history than I do. However, I think Tangible knows far more than both of us combined about Lutheran theology. BTW this is not my "sacramental theology" but it is Lutheran "sacramental theology". Catholic "sacramental theology" is also different in certain aspects.

Out of curiosity on my own part, would you say that baptism and communion are means of grace and, if so, how are they means of grace?

 

[ptomwebster]

I do not disagree that you know far more about their history than I do. However, I think Tangible knows far more than both of us combined about Lutheran theology. BTW this is not my "sacramental theology" but it is Lutheran "sacramental theology". Catholic "sacramental theology" is also different in certain aspects.

Out of curiosity on my own part, would you say that baptism and communion are means of grace and, if so, how are they means of grace?

Part of the reason the EFCA and ECC broke away from the Swedish Lutheran Church is we did not agree with them on baptism. Both communion and baptism are acts of obedience; they are not means of salvation. I have had many long heated discussions on this with people from Luther Theological Seminary. I don't waste my time on that any more.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Part of the reason the EFCA and ECC broke away from the Swedish Lutheran Church is we did not agree with them on baptism. Both communion and baptism are acts of obedience; they are not means of salvation. I have had many long heated discussions on this with people from Luther Theological Seminary. I don't waste my time on that any more.

Exactly. Now, I think you understand where Tangible is coming from. BTW I am entirely in agreement with you concerning baptism and communion, which is one reason I am not Lutheran.