Evangelical. I have considered myself one for many years. Now I cringe sometimes at being labeled one. The term is used to define voting blocs these days in the presidential primaries. But there is a much deeper and more serious question surrounding the term than politics. Michael Horton writes,
It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what an evangelical is and is not. Basically, American evangelicalism divides, from the mid-eighteenth century on, into two traditions: revivalistic and Reformational (as in the 16th century Reformation). While the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Revival in Britain were examples of the harmony between reformation and revival, these eventually became rivals as the latter developed an Arminian theology. As the Arminian branch of revivalism gained the popular advantage, evangelicalism became increasingly shaped by human-centered theology on a popular level even while its principal works of systematic theology were reformed.
The heart of the Reformation debate was, Who saves whom? Does God save sinners? Or do we save ourselves with God’s help? The Roman Catholic Church was confused on that question throughout the Middle Ages, sharply divided at the time of the Reformation, but finally determined by the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century that the second answer was better. [Their conclusion?] God’s grace is the source, but human cooperation with that grace is what makes God’s saving will effective. Thus, God justifies us by making us better and that involves our own participation.He goes on to ask the question, “Is it possible to be an ‘evangelical Arminian’?”
Horton concludes,
An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives of evangelicalism were denied by Rome at the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants in 1610, were confused and challenged by John Wesley in the eighteenth century, and have become either ignored or denied in contemporary “evangelicalism.”
In conclusion, the evangelical movement is faced with a difficult decision: either to reclaim the meaning of “evangelical,” or to shed its confinement. Let those maverick “evangelicals” who deny the great truths of the evangelical (and indeed, even the catholic) faith stand up with the courage of their convictions and lead an exodus from evangelicalism, but it is to my mind the height of arrogance and dishonesty to seek to represent oneself as something which one clearly is not.
He continues,
Today one can be an evangelical-which has historically meant holding to total depravity, unconditional election, justification by grace through faith alone, the sufficiency of scripture-and at the same time be an Arminian, denying or distorting this very evangelical message… Let us lovingly confront our brothers and sisters in a spirit of boldness, but humility, as we undertake to bring ourselves and our fellow Christians into greater conformity to “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 24).
I could not agree more. Read Horton’s rationale. Good stuff.
February 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Normally I would preface my reply by addressing you as Brother but I will dispense with that as you would obviously not consider me so. Onward to address your recap of Horton’s words. Just as they have absconded with the word ‘Reformed’ as representative of only Calvinism, he would now make off with the term evangelical, somehow cementing it only to his theological framework. An Evangelical is not defined by theology as he would imply but quite simply by one’s belief and faith in the Scriptures and in the belief that salvation is by faith in the life, works, and death of Christ alone. Never has being an evangelical meant adhering to the creed of the Calvinists, despite Horton’s divisive proclamation.
February 8, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Doulos, I will surely assume you are a Christian brother unless I have some overriding reason not to. Horton (nor do I) does not call you less than a brother just because you are an Arminian.
Notice the use of Horton’s words, “Let us lovingly confront our brothers and sisters in a spirit of boldness, but humility…”
Of course his point is that historically evangelical carried with it a theological framework, Calvinism or Augustinianism, and that those who have departed from that framework should seek another term than evangelical, lest the term be rendered meaningless…which I think it is today.
e.g. Evangelicals today include: RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, TD Jakes, Robert Schuller, you, me. We’re all over the map! So the term really doesn’t mean much at all.
I appreciate your comments and please continue to interact. Perhaps I need to be reformed (pun intended).
Blessings!